Client's understanding of instructions for small animals in a veterinary neurological referral center.

agreement rate client communication client conversation communication discharge instruction questionnaire reproducibility

Journal

Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
Titre abrégé: J Vet Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8708660

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 May 2024
Historique:
received: 17 11 2023
accepted: 05 04 2024
medline: 3 5 2024
pubmed: 3 5 2024
entrez: 3 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

It is not known how much information clients retrieve from discharge instructions. To investigate client's understanding of discharge instructions and influencing factors. Dogs and cats being hospitalized for neurological diseases. Clients were presented questionnaires regarding their pet's disease, diagnostics, treatments, prognosis and discharge instructions at time of discharge and 2 weeks later. The same questions were answered by discharging veterinarians at time of discharge. Clients answered additional questions regarding the subjective feelings during discharge conversation. Data collected included: data describing discharging veterinarian (age, gender, years of clinical experience, specialist status), data describing the client (age, gender, educational status). Raw percentage of agreement (RPA) between answers of clinicians and clients as well as factors potentially influencing the RPA were evaluated. Of 230 clients being approached 151 (65.7%) and 70 (30.4%) clients responded to the first and second questionnaire, respectively (130 dog and 30 cat owners). The general RPA between clinician's and client's responses over all questions together was 68.9% and 66.8% at the 2 time points. Questions regarding adverse effects of medication (29.0%), residual clinical signs (35.8%), and confinement instructions (36.8%) had the lowest RPAs at the first time point. The age of clients (P = .008) negatively influenced RPAs, with clients older than 50 years having lower RPA. Clients can only partially reproduce information provided at discharge. Only clients' increasing age influenced recall of information. Instructions deemed to be important should be specifically stressed during discharge.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
It is not known how much information clients retrieve from discharge instructions.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To investigate client's understanding of discharge instructions and influencing factors.
ANIMALS METHODS
Dogs and cats being hospitalized for neurological diseases.
METHODS METHODS
Clients were presented questionnaires regarding their pet's disease, diagnostics, treatments, prognosis and discharge instructions at time of discharge and 2 weeks later. The same questions were answered by discharging veterinarians at time of discharge. Clients answered additional questions regarding the subjective feelings during discharge conversation. Data collected included: data describing discharging veterinarian (age, gender, years of clinical experience, specialist status), data describing the client (age, gender, educational status). Raw percentage of agreement (RPA) between answers of clinicians and clients as well as factors potentially influencing the RPA were evaluated.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 230 clients being approached 151 (65.7%) and 70 (30.4%) clients responded to the first and second questionnaire, respectively (130 dog and 30 cat owners). The general RPA between clinician's and client's responses over all questions together was 68.9% and 66.8% at the 2 time points. Questions regarding adverse effects of medication (29.0%), residual clinical signs (35.8%), and confinement instructions (36.8%) had the lowest RPAs at the first time point. The age of clients (P = .008) negatively influenced RPAs, with clients older than 50 years having lower RPA.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE CONCLUSIONS
Clients can only partially reproduce information provided at discharge. Only clients' increasing age influenced recall of information. Instructions deemed to be important should be specifically stressed during discharge.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38700383
doi: 10.1111/jvim.17085
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.

Références

Abood SK. Increasing adherence in practice: making your clients partners in care. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2007;37:151‐164. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2006.09.011
Kanji N, Coe JB, Adams CL, Shaw JR. Effect of veterinarian‐client‐patient interactions on client adherence to dentistry and surgery recommendations in companion‐animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012;240:427‐436. doi:10.2460/javma.240.4.427
Mendez DH, Büttner P, Kelly J, et al. Difficulties experienced by veterinarians when communicating about emerging zoonotic risks with animal owners: the case of Hendra virus. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:1‐12.
Schultz K. Pet owner study: communication key driver to improved animal care. North Olmstead. 2007;38:11‐12.
Pun JKH. An integrated review of the role of communication in veterinary clinical practice. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16:394. doi:10.1186/s12917‐020‐02558‐2
Hoek AE, Anker SCP, van Beeck EF, Burdorf A, Rood PPM, Haagsma JA. Patient discharge instructions in the emergency department and their effects on comprehension and recall of discharge instructions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75:435‐444. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.008
Watson PWB, McKinstry B. A systematic review of interventions to improve recall of medical advice in healthcare consultations. J R Soc Med. 2009;102:235‐243.
Marty H, Bogenstetter Y, Franc G, et al. How well informed are patients when leaving the emergency department? Comparing information provided and information retained. Emerg Med J. 2013;30:53‐57. doi:10.1136/emermed‐2011‐200451
Engel KG, Heisler M, Smith CM, et al. Patient comprehension of emergency department care and instructions: are patients aware of when they do not understand. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53:451‐461.e15.
Heok AE, De Ridder MAJ, Bayliss A, et al. Effective strategy for improving instructions for analgesic use in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20:210‐213. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328357a6dd
Roberts F. Speaking to and for animals in a veterinary clinic: a practice for managing interpersonal interaction. Res Lang Social Interact. 2004;37:421‐446. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_2
Stoewen DL, Coe JB, MacMartin C, Stone EA, Dewey CE. Qualitative study of the communication expectations of clients accessing oncology care at a tertiary referral center for dogs with life‐limiting cancer. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;245:785‐795.
Kindelan K, Kent G. Concordance between patients' information preferences and general practitioners' perceptions. Psychol Health. 1987;1:399‐409.
Coe JB, Adams CL, Bonnett BN. A focus group study of veterinarians' and pet owners' perceptions of veterinarian‐client communication in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008;233:1072‐1080.
Küper AM, Merle R. Being nice is not enough‐exploring relationship‐centered veterinary care with structural equation modeling. A quantitative study on German pet owners' perception. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:1‐16. doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00056
Janke N, Coe JB, Sutherland KAK, Bernardo TM, Dewey CE, Stone EA. Evaluating shared decision‐making between companion animal veterinarians and their clients using the observer OPTION5 instrument. Vet Rec. 2021;89:e778. doi:10.1002/vetr.778

Auteurs

Thomas Flegel (T)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Katharina Dobersek (K)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Sabrina Bayer (S)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Lisa F Becker (LF)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Shenja Loderstedt (S)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Irene C Böttcher (IC)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Josephine Dietzel (J)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Carina Tästensen (C)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Theresa Kalliwoda (T)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Marie A Harkenthal (MA)

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Andreas Kühnapfel (A)

Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Vivian Weiß (V)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Sarah Gutmann (S)

Department for Small Animals, Veterinary Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Classifications MeSH