PURPOSE: Effective patient-doctor communication is linked to improved patient functional and physiological health status, better adherence to physician recommendations, and increased patient satisfaction. However, studies show that patients have difficulty understanding and recalling information discussed during a medical encounter. The purpose of this study was to assess patient engagement, patient-doctor communication, and patient-doctor interactions with the utilization of a patient encounter card to help aid in communication. METHODS: New patients presenting to a single hand surgeon during an 8-month period between 2019 and 2020 were recruited for this study. Patients were recruited in pre and postintervention phases, defined by the rollout of a patient encounter card. Patients studied in the preintervention group were defined as the control population and experienced a typical office visit. The postintervention group experienced a typical office visit with the addition of a patient encounter card distributed to patients prior to meeting with the physician and screened by the physician during the visit to guide the encounter. Patient satisfaction and engagement surveys were collected during patient checkout process. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven patients (70% participation rate) were enrolled in the preintervention (145) and postintervention (142) phases. The utilization of a patient encounter card for setting a visit agenda resulted in a significant increase in self-reported patient engagement, improving from 74% to 88%. In both phases, 98% of patients felt that the physician listened well or very well and reported high levels of confidence in the provider being able to address their primary health concerns (72% and 79%, respectively). Overall, patient satisfaction was maintained pre and postintervention (96% and 98%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the encounter card improved patients feelings of engagement during their visits. Further research is required to determine the impact of these tools on providers engagement and patient outcomes to improve quality of care in hand surgery. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.

BACKGROUND: With the expanded indications for telemedicine, there is increased utility for screening methods to determine which patients are likely to progress to surgical intervention, requiring in-person visits. Patient-rated tools such as the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) may be one such tool for screening patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The aim of the study was to evaluate whether BCTQ scores were predictive of offering conservative treatment or surgical intervention for CTS. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CTS from January 2017 to February 2020 completed BCTQ questionnaires prior to in-person office visits. Demographics, comorbidities, and highest level of intervention recommended were recorded for each patient as conservative, injection, or surgery. Pearson χ2 and independent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether BCTQ symptom severity and functional scores were associated with intervention type. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients with CTS were included. Of these, 103 were recommended conservative or injection treatment and 97 were recommended surgery. There were no differences in comorbidities between groups, including other upper extremity pathology (P = .57), previous upper extremity surgery (P = .32), hypertension (P = .17), hypothyroidism (P = .15), rheumatoid arthritis (P = .34), and diabetes (P = .30). Between these groups, there were no differences in BCTQ symptom severity score (symptom severity scale [SSS]; P = .16) or BCTQ functional severity score (functional severity scale [FSS]; P = .96). CONCLUSIONS: There is no correlation between comorbidities and BCTQ SSS or FSS score, and offering surgery for CTS. In an era of minimizing non-essential health care visits, the BCTQ is insufficient in screening patients as potential surgical candidates.