Decision or No Decision: How Do Patient–Physician Interactions End and What Matters?

BACKGROUND: A clearly stated clinical decision can induce a cognitive closure in patients and is an important investment in the end of patient–physician communications. Little is known about how often explicit decisions are made in primary care visits. OBJECTIVE: To use an innovative videotape analysis approach to assess physicians’ propensity to state decisions explicitly, and to examine the factors influencing decision patterns. DESIGN: We coded topics discussed in 395 videotapes of primary care visits, noting the number of instances and the length of discussions on each topic, and how discussions ended. A regression analysis tested the relationship between explicit decisions and visit factors such as the nature of topics under discussion, instances of discussion, the amount of time the patient spoke, and competing demands from other topics. RESULTS: About 77% of topics ended with explicit decisions. Patients spoke for an average of 58 seconds total per topic. Patients spoke more during topics that ended with an explicit decision, (67 seconds), compared with 36 seconds otherwise. The number of instances of a topic was associated with higher odds of having an explicit decision (OR = 1.73, p < 0.01). Increases in the number of topics discussed in visits (OR = 0.95, p < .05), and topics on lifestyle and habits (OR = 0.60, p < .01) were associated with lower odds of explicit decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although discussions often ended with explicit decisions, there were variations related to the content and dynamics of interactions. We recommend strengthening patients’ voice and developing clinical tools, e.g., an “exit prescription,” to improving decision making

Stereotyping of medical disability claimants' communication behaviour by physicians: towards more focused education for social insurance physicians

Background: Physicians who hold medical disability assessment interviews (social insurance physicians) are probably influenced by stereotypes of claimants, especially because they have limited time available and they have to make complicated decisions. Because little is known about the influences of stereotyping on assessment interviews, the objectives of this paper were to qualitatively investigate: (1) the content of stereotypes used to classify claimants with regard to the way in which they communicate; (2) the origins of such stereotypes; (3) the advantages and disadvantages of stereotyping in assessment interviews; and (4) how social insurance physicians minimise the undesirable influences of negative stereotyping. Methods: Data were collected during three focus group meetings with social insurance physicians who hold medical disability assessment interviews with sick-listed employees (i.e. claimants). The participants also completed a questionnaire about demographic characteristics. The data were qualitatively analysed in Atlas.ti in four steps, according to the grounded theory and the principle of constant comparison. Results: A total of 22 social insurance physicians participated. Based on their responses, a claimant's communication was classified with regard to the degree of respect and acceptance in the physician-claimant relationship, and the degree of dominance. Most of the social insurance physicians reported that they classify claimants in general groups, and use these classifications to adapt their own communication behaviour. Moreover, the social insurance physicians revealed that their stereotypes originate from information in the claimants' files and first impressions. The main advantages of stereotyping were that this provides a framework for the assessment interview, it can save time, and it is interesting to check whether the stereotype is correct. Disadvantages of stereotyping were that the stereotypes often prove incorrect, they do not give the complete picture, and the claimant's behaviour changes constantly. Social insurance physicians try to minimise the undesirable influences of stereotypes by being aware of counter transference, making formal assessments, staying neutral to the best of their ability, and being compassionate. Conclusions: We concluded that social insurance physicians adapt their communication style to the degree of respect and dominance of claimants in the physician-claimant relationship, but they try to minimise the undesirable influences of stereotypes in assessment interviews. It is recommended that this issue should be addressed in communication skills trainin

A multi-level system quality improvement intervention to reduce racial disparities in hypertension care and control: study protocol

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in blood pressure control have been well documented in the United States. Research suggests that many factors contribute to this disparity, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. To date, few interventions aimed at reducing hypertension disparities have addressed factors at all of these levels. This paper describes the design of Project ReD CHiP (Reducing Disparities and Controlling Hypertension in Primary Care), a multi-level system quality improvement project. By intervening on multiple levels, this project aims to reduce disparities in blood pressure control and improve guideline concordant hypertension care. METHODS: Using a pragmatic trial design, we are implementing three complementary multi-level interventions designed to improve blood pressure measurement, provide patient care management services and offer expanded provider education resources in six primary care clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. We are staggering the introduction of the interventions and will use Statistical Process Control (SPC) charting to determine if there are changes in outcomes at each clinic after implementation of each intervention. The main hypothesis is that each intervention will have an additive effect on improvements in guideline concordant care and reductions in hypertension disparities, but the combination of all three interventions will result in the greatest impact, followed by blood pressure measurement with care management support, blood pressure measurement with provider education, and blood pressure measurement only. This study also examines how organizational functioning and cultural competence affect the success of the interventions. DISCUSSION: As a quality improvement project, Project ReD CHiP employs a novel study design that specifically targets multi-level factors known to contribute to hypertension disparities. To facilitate its implementation and improve its sustainability, we have incorporated stakeholder input and tailored components of the interventions to meet the specific needs of the involved clinics and communities. Results from this study will provide knowledge about how integrated multi-level interventions can improve hypertension care and reduce disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0156686