How doctors' communication style and race concordance influence African-Caribbean patients when disclosing depression

Objective: To determine the impact of doctors' communication style and doctor-patient race concordance on UK African-Caribbeans' comfort in disclosing depression. Methods: 160 African-Caribbean and 160 white British subjects, stratified by gender and history of depression, participated in simulated depression consultations with video-recorded doctors. Doctors were stratified by black or white race, gender and a high (HPC) or low patient-centred (LPC) communication style, giving a full 2. ×. 2. ×. 2 factorial design. Afterwards, participants rated aspects of doctors' communication style, their comfort in disclosing depression and treatment preferences. Results: Race concordance had no impact on African-Caribbeans' comfort in disclosing depression. However a HPC versus LPC communication style made them significantly more positive about their interactions with doctors (p = 0.000), their overall comfort (p = 0.003), their comfort in disclosing their emotional state (p = 0.001), and about considering talking therapy (p = 0.01); but less positive about considering antidepressant medication (p =0.01). Conclusion: Doctors' communication style was shown to be more important than patient race or race concordance in influencing African Caribbeans' depression consultation experiences. Changing doctors' communication style may help reduce disparities in depression care. Practice Implications: Practitioners should cultivate a HPC style to make African-Caribbeans more comfortable when disclosing depression, so that it is less likely to be missed

Communication in cancer genetic counselling: does it reflect counselees' previsit needs and preferences?

This study sought to describe counsellor–counselee interaction during initial cancer genetic counselling consultations and to examine whether the communication reflects counselees' previsit needs. A total of 130 consecutive counselees, referred mainly for breast or colon cancer, completed a questionnaire before their first appointment at a genetic clinic. Their visit was videotaped. Counselee and counsellor verbal communications were analysed and initiative to discuss 11 genetics-specific conversational topics was assessed. The content of the visit appeared relatively standard. Overall, counselees had a stronger psychosocial focus than counsellors. Counsellors directed the communication more and initiated the discussion of most of the topics assessed. Counselees did not appear to communicate readily in a manner that reflected their previsit needs. Counsellors provided more psychosocial information to counselees in higher need for emotional support, yet did not enquire more about counselees' specific concerns. New counselees may be helped by receiving more information on the counselling procedure prior to their visit, and may be advised to prepare the visit more thoroughly so as to help them verbalise more their queries during the visit

Open and hidden agendas of "asymptomatic" patients who request check-up exams

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for a check-up recommend routine screening not triggered by specific symptoms for some known risk factors and diseases in the general population. Patients' perceptions and expectations regarding a check-up exam may differ from these principles. However, quantitative and qualitative data about the discrepancy between patient- and provider expectations for this type of clinic consultation is lacking. METHODS: For a year, we prospectively enrolled 66 patients who explicitly requested a "check-up" at our medical outpatient division. All patients actively denied upon prompting having any symptoms or specific health concerns at the time they made their appointment. All consultations were videotaped and analysed for information about spontaneously mentioned symptoms and reasons for the clinic consultation ("open agendas") and for cues to hidden patient agendas using the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS). RESULTS: All patients initially declared to be asymptomatic but this was ultimately the case in only 7 out of 66 patients. The remaining 59 patients spontaneously mentioned a mean of 4.2 ± 3.3 symptoms during their first consultation. In 23 patients a total of 31 hidden agendas were revealed. The primary categories for hidden agendas were health concerns, psychosocial concerns and the patient's concept of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients requesting a general check-up tend to be motivated by specific symptoms and health concerns and are not "asymptomatic" patients who primarily come for preventive issues. Furthermore, physicians must be alert for possible hidden agendas, as one in three patients have one or more hidden reasons for requesting a check-up

GPs’ Interactional Styles in Consultations with Dutch and Ethnic Minority Patients

The aim of this study was to examine interactional styles of general practitioners (GPs) in consultations with Dutch patients as compared to ethnic minority patients, from the perspective of level of mutual understanding between patient and GP. Data of 103 transcripts of video-registered medical interviews were analyzed to assess GPs’ communication styles in terms of involvement, detachment, shared decision-making and patient-centeredness. Surveys were used to collect data on patients’ characteristics and mutual understanding. Results show that overall, GPs communicate less adequately with ethnic minority patients than with Dutch patients; they involve them less in decision-making and check their understanding of what has been discussed less often. Intercultural consultations are thus markedly distinguishable from intracultural consultations by a lack of adequate communicative behavior by GPs. As every patient has a moral and legal right to make informed decisions, it is concluded that GPs should check more often whether their ethnic minority patients have understood what has been said during the medical consultation

Dunno if you've any plans for the future: medical student indirect questioning in simulated oncology interviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This exploratory study investigated the motives of medical students (N = 63) for using indirect questions of the type <it>I don't know if </it>[you have already heard about chemotherapies], <it>I don't know how </it>[you are], or <it>I don't know what </it>[you do for a living] in simulated patient interviews during a communication skills course.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>I don't know </it>questions (IDK-Qs) were observed during the initial evaluation of students' communication skills; they were systematically identified through video screening and subjected to a qualitative content and discourse analysis considering their context, their content, their intent and their effect on the simulated patients. To evaluate the specificity of medical students' IDK-Qs, the data were compared with a data set of oncologists (N = 31) conducting simulated patient interviews in the context of a Communication Skills Training (CST).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During the interviews, 41.3% of the students asked 1-6 IDK-Qs. The IDK-Qs were attributed to three content categories: medical/treatment questions (N = 24); lifestyle/psychosocial questions (N = 18); and "inviting questions" questions (N = 11). Most of the IDK-Qs had an exploratory function (46/53), with simulated patients providing detailed responses or asking for more information (36/53). IDK-Qs were rare in the oncologist sample compared to the student sample (5 vs. 53 occurrences).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IDK-Qs showed a question design difference between medical students and oncologists in simulated patient interviews. Among other reasons for this difference, the possible function of IDK-Qs as a protective linguistic strategy and marker for psychological discomfort is discussed.</p

Is it possible to improve the breaking bad news skills of residents when a relative is present? A randomised study.

peer reviewe

Explanations and information-giving: Clinician strategies used in talking to parents of preterm infants

Background: The study is part of a larger research programme on neonatal brain imaging in the trial element of which parents were randomised to receive prognostic information based upon either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound findings (ePrime study). The aim of this study was to investigate the strategies used by clinicians in communicating with parents following imaging at term age of the brain of preterm infants born before 33 weeks gestation, focusing on explanations and information-giving about prognosis Method: Audio recordings of discussions between parents and clinicians were made following MRI and ultrasound assessment. Parents were given the scan result and the baby's predicted prognosis. A framework was developed based on preliminary analysis of the recordings and findings of other studies of information-giving in healthcare. Communication of scan results by the clinicians was further explored in qualitative analysis with 36 recordings using NVivo 10 and the specifically developed framework. Emerging themes and associated sub-themes were identified. Results: The ways in which clinicians gave information and helped parents to understand were identified. Within the over-arching theme of clinician strategies a wide range of approaches were used to facilitate parental understanding. These included orienting, checking on previously acquired information, using analogies, explaining terminology, pacing the information, confirming understanding, inviting clarification, answering parents' questions and recapping at intervals. Ultimately four key themes were identified: 'Framing the information-giving', 'What we are looking at', 'Presenting the numbers and explaining the risk' and 'Appreciating the position of parents'. Conclusions: The interviews represent a multifaceted situation in which there is a tension between the need to explain and inform and the inherent complexity of neurological development, potential problems following preterm birth and the technology used to investigate and monitor these. © 2016 Redshaw and Harvey