Communication patterns for the most serious poison center calls

Abstract

Context The communication demands faced by specialists in poison information (SPI) are challenging in the health care context. Objectives 1: Describe SPI communication patterns for the highest risk poison exposure calls using cluster analysis, and 2: describe variation in communication patterns or clusters. Methods A sample of 1 year of poison exposure calls to a regional PCC with SPIs’ perceived severity rating of major/moderate perceived was collected. Digital voice recordings were linked with medical records and were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Descriptive analyses were applied and cluster-analytic techniques were used to assess variation in call communication and factors associated with that variation. Results Cases were described and 4 communication styles were identified. The Informational cluster represents 24% of calls and represent a pattern of relatively high levels of SPI clinical information and caller questions. The Facilitative cluster represents 35% of calls with a pattern of relatively high SPI questions and caller information provision. The Planning cluster represents 33.5% of calls representing a pattern of relatively high levels of SPI relationship talk. The Emotional cluster represents 7.5% of calls representing a pattern of relatively high caller and SPI emotion. Multinomial logistic regression using call/case characteristics as stepwise predictors of cluster membership revealed relationships between cluster membership and number of substances, type of exposure (intentional vs. unintentional), caller relationship to patient, length of call (χ2s > 21.59, df =3, ps < .01)and SPI identity (χ2 = 88.34, df =33, p < .01). Conclusion This study provides a beginning step to understanding SPI communication behaviors. Our results suggest that SPIs are able to use a range of communication strategies that often involve not only information but also emotional responsiveness and rapport building. Findings also point to the opportunity for future communication training for SPIs to meet the needs of the heterogeneous caller population.

High call volume at poison control centers: identification and implications for communication

“…1, high call volume periods are unpredictable and uncommon events, making them difficult to study. In order to systematically evaluate the potential impact of high volume call periods on PCCs, we used data collected for a larger study 3–5 to identify the most active periods (99th percentile) of SPI activity as high volume time based on call volume. We evaluated five statistical models (probability distributions) and found that the Weibull distribution for “calls per SPI per 30-minute period” most consistently identified time periods that were busier than 99% of all other time periods.…”

“…3–5 All calls to the emergency hotline were routed to an automatic call distributor (ACD) that “answers” the call and a descriptive option menu is played for the caller. When the caller selects the “poisoning or overdose” option, the call is routed to ring on the phone of an available SPI.…”

“…3–5 In the parent project, human exposure cases in which calls were made by a lay person (i.e. non-health care provider) were coded using Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).…”

“…Codes were then combined into composites to represent different types of communication: clinical information , close-ended questions, open-ended questions, emotional talk, recommendations (SPI only), relationship talk (SPI only), and statements per speaker. 3 Examples of these types of communication are found in Table 1. All coded calls from the parent study that occurred during the high call volume and low call volume times (see below) were analyzed.…”

Exploring Brand Awareness and Utilization Patterns of Poison Control Center Services in Thailand: a Comparative Study Among Healthcare Professionals and the General Public

“…The choice of communication methods and channels of communication perceived by the user are critical in influencing the use of PCC services (Ellington et al, 2011). Additionally, Kshatri et al (2021) stated that the readily available and easily accessible effective communication channels are essential to enhance awareness and utilization of services.…”