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

Adjuncts or adversaries to shared decision-making? Applying the Integrative Model of behavior to the role and design of decision support interventions in healthcare interactions

Background A growing body of literature documents the efficacy of decision support interventions (DESI) in helping patients make informed clinical decisions. DESIs are frequently described as an adjunct to shared decision-making between a patient and healthcare provider, however little is known about the effects of DESIs on patients' interactional behaviors-whether or not they promote the involvement of patients in decisions. Discussion Shared decision-making requires not only a cognitive understanding of the medical problem and deliberation about the potential options to address it, but also a number of communicative behaviors that the patient and physician need to engage in to reach the goal of making a shared decision. Theoretical models of behavior can guide both the identification of constructs that will predict the performance or non-performance of specific behaviors relevant to shared decision-making, as well as inform the development of interventions to promote these specific behaviors. We describe how Fishbein's Integrative Model (IM) of behavior can be applied to the development and evaluation of DESIs. There are several ways in which the IM could be used in research on the behavioral effects of DESIs. An investigator could measure the effects of an intervention on the central constructs of the IM - attitudes, normative pressure, self-efficacy, and intentions related to communication behaviors relevant to shared decision-making. However, if one were interested in the determinants of these domains, formative qualitative research would be necessary to elicit the salient beliefs underlying each of the central constructs. Formative research can help identify potential targets for a theory-based intervention to maximize the likelihood that it will influence the behavior of interest or to develop a more fine-grained understanding of intervention effects. Summary Behavioral theory can guide the development and evaluation of DESIs to increase the likelihood that these will prepare patients to play a more active role in the decision-making process. Self-reported behavioral measures can reduce the measurement burden for investigators and create a standardized method for examining and reporting the determinants of communication behaviors necessary for shared decision-making

Relationships of the Location and Content of Rounds to Specialty, Institution, Patient-Census, and Team Size

OBJECTIVE: Existing observational data describing rounds in teaching hospitals are 15 years old, predate duty-hour regulations, are limited to one institution, and do not include pediatrics. We sought to evaluate the effect of medical specialty, institution, patient-census, and team participants upon time at the bedside and education occurring on rounds. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: Between December of 2007 and October of 2008 we performed 51 observations at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Seattle Children's Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, and the University of Washington Medical Center of 35 attending physicians. We recorded minutes spent on rounds in three location and seven activity categories, members of the care team, and patient-census. RESULTS: Results presented are means. Pediatric rounds had more participants (8.2 vs. 4.1 physicians, p<.001; 11.9 vs. 2.4 non-physicians, p<.001) who spent more minutes in hallways (96.9 min vs. 35.2 min, p<.001), fewer minutes at the bedside (14.6 vs. 38.2 min, p = .01) than internal medicine rounds. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that minutes at the bedside per patient was negatively associated with pediatrics (-2.77 adjusted bedside minutes; 95% CI -4.61 to -0.93; p<.001) but positively associated with the number of non-physician participants (0.12 adjusted bedside minutes per non physician participant; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17; p = <.001). Education minutes on rounds was positively associated with the presence of an attending physician (2.70 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 1.27 to 4.12; p<.001) and with one institution (1.39 adjusted education minutes; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians spent less time at the bedside on rounds than internal medicine physicians due to reasons other than patient-census or the number of participants in rounds. Compared to historical data, internal medicine rounds were spent more at the bedside engaged in patient care and communication, and less upon educational activities

Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology

BACKGROUND: The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites. METHODS/DESIGN: In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology. DISCUSSION: Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care