目的:门诊就诊是家庭照顾者的关键接触点。然而,只有37%的家庭护理人员能够陪同患者就诊。当他们不能参加时,护理人员会收到访问信息以协助他们的护理。然而,我们对从门诊就诊中获取信息的方法与重要护理者结局的关系知之甚少.这项研究试图确定是否接受临床就诊信息的方式(与患者交谈,出席访问,或使用随访总结[AVS])与护理人员负担的变化相关,照顾者的准备,以及护理的积极方面。
方法:全国成人家庭照顾者样本的横断面网络调查。多元线性回归模型确定了沟通模式和照顾者负担之间的关联,准备,以及护理的积极方面,调整社会人口统计学协变量。
结果:受访者(N=340)大多是男性(58%),白色(59%)年龄从18岁到85岁,并支持包括糖尿病在内的患者,痴呆症,和癌症。与患者交谈与护理的积极方面增加相关(95%CI=2.01,5.42),AVS与护理的积极方面增加相关(95%CI=0.4,3.56)和护理准备(95%CI=0.61,3.15)。使用任何从访问中接收信息的方法都与准备工作的最大增加有关,与不接收访问信息相比。我们没有观察到沟通方法和照顾者负担之间的关联。
结论:沟通就诊信息的方法与改善护理人员的准备和护理的积极方面有关,尽管护理人员的负担可能不受信息交流的影响。鉴于当前通信方法的局限性,未来的工作应该探索我们发现的关联的方向性,并确定与护理人员的访视沟通策略,以优化护理人员和患者结局.
OBJECTIVE: The clinic visit is a critical point of contact for family caregivers. However, only 37% of family caregivers are able to accompany patients to visits. When they cannot attend, caregivers receive visit information to assist with their caregiving. However, little is known about how method of receiving information from clinic visits is associated with important caregiver outcomes. This study sought to determine whether mode of receiving clinic visit information (speaking with the patient, attending the visit, or using an after-visit summary [AVS]) was associated with changes in caregiver burden, caregiver preparedness, and the positive aspects of caregiving.
METHODS: Cross-sectional web-based survey of a national sample of adult family caregivers. Multiple linear regression models determined associations between communication modes and caregivers\' burden, preparedness, and positive aspects of caregiving, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates.
RESULTS: Respondents (N = 340) were mostly male (58%), White (59%), ranged from 18 to 85 years old, and supported patients with conditions including diabetes, dementia, and cancer. Speaking with patients was associated with increases in positive aspects of caregiving (95% CI = 2.01, 5.42) and an AVS was associated with increases in positive aspects of caregiving (95% CI = 0.4, 3.56) and preparedness for caregiving (95% CI = 0.61, 3.15). Using any method of receiving information from visits was associated with the greatest increase in preparedness, compared to not receiving visit information. We did not observe an association between method of communication and caregiver burden.
CONCLUSIONS: Method of communicating visit information is associated with improvements in caregiver preparedness and the positive aspects of caregiving, though caregiver burden may be unaffected by information exchange. Given the limitations of current communication methods, future work should explore directionality of the associations we found and identify visit communication strategies with caregivers that optimize caregiver and patient outcomes.