Patient-physician interaction in general practice and health inequalities in a multidisciplinary study: design, methods and feasibility in the French INTERMEDE study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The way in which patients and their doctors interact is a potentially important factor in optimal communication during consultations as well as treatment, compliance and follow-up care. The aim of this multidisciplinary study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the 'black box' that is the interaction between the two parties during a general practice consultation, and to identify factors therein that may contribute to producing health inequalities. This paper outlines the original multidisciplinary methodology used, and the feasibility of this type of study.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>The study design combines methodologies on two separate samples in two phases. Firstly, a qualitative phase collected ethnographical and sociological data during consultation, followed by in-depth interviews with both patients and doctors independently. Secondly, a quantitative phase on a different sample of patients and physicians collected data via several questionnaires given to patients and doctors consisting of specific 'mirrored' questions asked post-consultation, as well as collecting information on patient and physician characteristics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The design and methodology used in this study were both successfully implemented, and readily accepted by doctors and patients alike. This type of multidisciplinary study shows great potential in providing further knowledge into the role of patient/physician interaction and its influence on maintaining or producing health inequalities. The next challenge in this study will be implementing the multidisciplinary approach during the data analysis.</p

Sources of evidence in HIV/AIDS care: pilot study comparing family physicians and AIDS service organization staff

BACKGROUND: The improvement of the quality of the evidence used in treatment decision-making is especially important in the case of patients with complicated disease processes such as HIV/AIDS for which multiple treatment strategies exist with conflicting reports of efficacy. Little is known about the perceptions of distinct groups of health care workers regarding various sources of evidence and how these influence the clinical decision-making process. Our objective was to investigate how two groups of treatment information providers for people living with HIV/AIDS perceive the importance of various sources of treatment information. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to staff at two local AIDS service organizations and to family physicians at three community health centres treating people living with HIV/AIDS. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 10 different sources of evidence for HIV/AIDS treatment information on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Mean rating scores and relative rankings were compared. RESULTS: Findings suggest that a discordance exists between the two health information provider groups in terms of their perceptions of the various sources of evidence. Furthermore, AIDS service organization staff ranked health care professionals as the most important source of information whereas physicians deemed AIDS service organizations to be relatively unimportant. The two groups appear to share a common mistrust for information from pharmaceutical industries. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance exists between medical "experts" from different backgrounds relating to their perceptions of evidence. Further investigation is warranted in order to reveal any effects on the quality of treatment information and implications in the decision-making process. Possible effects on collaboration and working relationships also warrant further exploration

Testing of a Model with Latino Patients That Explains the Links Among Patient-Perceived Provider Cultural Sensitivity, Language Preference, and Patient Treatment Adherence

Introduction Disparities in treatment adherence based on race and ethnicity are well documented but poorly understood. Specifically, the causes of treatment nonadherence among Latino patients living in the USA are complex and include cultural and language barriers. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether patients’ perceptions in patient-provider interactions (i.e., trust in provider, patient satisfaction, and patient sense of interpersonal control in patient-provider interactions) mediate any found association between patient-perceived provider cultural sensitivity (PCS) and treatment adherence among English-preferred Latino (EPL) and Spanish-preferred Latino (SPL) patients. Methods Data from 194 EPL patients and 361 SPL patients were obtained using questionnaires. A series of language-specific structural equation models were conducted to test the relationship between patient-perceived PCS and patient treatment adherence and the examined mediators of this relationship among the Latino patients. Results No significant direct effects of patient-perceived PCS on general treatment adherence were found. However, as hypothesized, several significant indirect effects emerged. Preferred language appeared to have moderating effects on the relationships between patient-perceived PCS and general treatment adherence. Conclusion These results suggest that interventions to promote treatment adherence among Latino patients should likely include provider training to foster patient-defined PCS, trust in provider, and patient satisfaction with care. Furthermore, this training needs to be customized to be suitable for providing care to Latino patients who prefer speaking Spanish and Latino patients who prefer speaking English

Engaging communication experts in a Delphi process to identify patient behaviors that could enhance communication in medical encounters

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The communication literature currently focuses primarily on improving physicians' verbal and non-verbal behaviors during the medical interview. The Four Habits Model is a teaching and research framework for physician communication that is based on evidence linking specific communication behaviors with processes and outcomes of care. The Model conceptualizes basic communication tasks as "Habits" and describes the sequence of physician communication behaviors during the clinical encounter associated with improved outcomes. Using the Four Habits Model as a starting point, we asked communication experts to identify the verbal communication behaviors of patients that are important in outpatient encounters.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a 4-round Delphi process with 17 international experts in communication research, medical education, and health care delivery. All rounds were conducted via the internet. In round 1, experts reviewed a list of proposed patient verbal communication behaviors within the Four Habits Model framework. The proposed patient verbal communication behaviors were identified based on a review of the communication literature. The experts could: approve the proposed list; add new behaviors; or modify behaviors. In rounds 2, 3, and 4, they rated each behavior for its fit (agree or disagree) with a particular habit. After each round, we calculated the percent agreement for each behavior and provided these data in the next round. Behaviors receiving more than 70% of experts' votes (either agree or disagree) were considered as achieving consensus.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 14 originally-proposed patient verbal communication behaviors, the experts modified all but 2, and they added 20 behaviors to the Model in round 1. In round 2, they were presented with 59 behaviors and 14 options to remove specific behaviors for rating. After 3 rounds of rating, the experts retained 22 behaviors. This set included behaviors such as asking questions, expressing preferences, and summarizing information.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The process identified communication tasks and verbal communication behaviors for patients similar to those outlined for physicians in the Four Habits Model. This represents an important step in building a single model that can be applied to teaching patients and physicians the communication skills associated with improved satisfaction and positive outcomes of care.</p

Can teaching agenda-setting skills to physicians improve clinical interaction quality? A controlled intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians and medical educators have repeatedly acknowledged the inadequacy of communication skills training in the medical school curriculum and opportunities to improve these skills in practice. This study of a controlled intervention evaluates the effect of teaching practicing physicians the skill of "agenda-setting" on patients' experiences with care. The agenda-setting intervention aimed to engage clinicians in the practice of initiating patient encounters by eliciting the full set of concerns from the patient's perspective and using that information to prioritize and negotiate which clinical issues should most appropriately be dealt with and which (if any) should be deferred to a subsequent visit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten physicians from a large physician organization in California with baseline patient survey scores below the statewide 25th percentile participated in the agenda-setting intervention. Eleven physicians matched on baseline scores, geography, specialty, and practice size were selected as controls. Changes in survey summary scores from pre- and post-intervention surveys were compared between the two groups. Multilevel regression models that accounted for the clustering of patients within physicians and controlled for respondent characteristics were used to examine the effect of the intervention on survey scale scores.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians. Changes in patients' experiences with organizational access, care coordination, and office staff interactions did not differ by experimental group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A simple and modest behavioral training for practicing physicians has potential to positively affect physician-patient relationship interaction quality. It will be important to evaluate the effect of more extensive trainings, including those that work with physicians on a broader set of communication techniques.</p

Response vs. Perception

Three experiments were conducted in which college students read, and then attempted to match, a series of written descriptive passages with the referent photographs on which they were based; the photographs sho wed the face of an actor, representing a variety of emotional expressions. In Experiment I, subjects provided with a series of context passages depicting a narrow range of emotions (neither pleasant nor unpleasant) chose “matches” having more extreme pleasantness values than did subjects provided with context passages depicting a wide range of descriptions on the pleasantness dimension when responding to test descriptions embedded within the context series. In Experiments II and III, contrast effects were obtained; subjects who had read mostly unpleasant context passages chose more pleasant referents in response to neutral test descriptions than did those who had read mostly pleasant descriptions. The results of all three experiments suggested that these effects were mediated in large part by a response bias, the tendency to use each response alternative with roughly equal frequency. In Experiments II and III, there was suggestive evidence for the possibility that a more central (or perceptual) mechanism may also have contributed to the observed results.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45367/1/11031_2004_Article_BF00992590.pd

Healthcare professionals’ views on patient-centered care in hospitals

Background: Patient-centered care (PCC) is a main determinant of care quality. Research has shown that PCC is a multi-dimensional concept, and organizations that provide PCC well report better patient and organizational outcomes. However, little is known about the relative importance of PCC dimensions. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the relative importance of the eight dimensions of PCC according to hospital-based healthcare professionals, and examine whether their viewpoints are determined by context. Methods: Thirty-four healthcare professionals (16 from the geriatrics department, 15 from a surgical intensive care unit, 3 quality employees) working at a large teaching hospital in New York City were interviewed using Q methodology. Participants were asked to rank 35 statements representing eight dimensions of PCC extracted from the literature: patient preferences, physical comfort, coordination of care, emotional support, acce

A preliminary investigation to explore the cognitive resources of physicians experiencing difficulty in training

Background Treating patients is complex, and research shows that there are differences in cognitive resources between physicians who experience difficulties, and those who do not. It is possible that differences in some cognitive resources could explain the difficulties faced by some physicians. In this study, we explore differences in cognitive resources between different groups of physicians (that is, between native (UK) physicians and International Medical Graduates (IMG); those who continue with training versus those who were subsequently removed from the training programme); and also between physicians experiencing difficulties compared with the general population. Methods A secondary evaluation was conducted on an anonymised dataset provided by the East Midlands Professional Support Unit (PSU). One hundred and twenty one postgraduate trainee physicians took part in an Educational Psychology assessment through PSU. Referrals to the PSU were mainly on the basis of problems with exam progression and difficulties in communication skills, organisation and confidence. Cognitive resources were assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). Physicians were categorised into three PSU outcomes: ‘Continued in training’, ‘Removed from training’ and ‘Active’ (currently accessing the PSU). Results Using a one-sample Z test, we compared the referred physician sample to a UK general population sample on the WAIS-IV and found the referred sample significantly higher in Verbal Comprehension (VCI; z = 8.78) and significantly lower in Working Memory (WMI; z = −4.59). In addition, the native sample were significantly higher in Verbal Comprehension than the UK general population sample (VCI; native physicians: z = 9.95, p < .001, d = 1.25), whilst there was a lesser effect for the difference between the IMG sample and the UK general population (z = 2.13, p = .03, d = 0.29). Findings also showed a significant difference in VCI scores between those physicians who were ‘Removed from training’ and those who ‘Continued in training’. Conclusions Our results suggest it is important to understand the cognitive resources of physicians to provide a more focussed explanation of those who experience difficulties in training. This will help to implement more targeted interventions to help physicians develop compensatory strategies