Search

To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.

Although medical information is essential for all patients, information needs and information processing capacities vary between individual patients and over time and context, within patients. Therefore, it is often recommended to "tailor" medical information to individual patients during clinic visits. However, there is a lack of consensus on what "tailoring" in clinical interactions represents since the definitions provided in the literature thus far generally regard tailoring of written text, rather than in dialogue during face-to-face interactions. To provide clinicians with guidance on how to tailor information to individual patients and to allow researchers to assess the effectiveness thereof, clarity is urgently needed regarding what "tailoring" actually means and what it entails in practice. In this paper we outline the current challenges of applying the concept of "tailoring" to the clinical setting and present existing definitions. Importantly, we introduce a new working definition of the concept that encompasses essential informational and dialogic components. We believe this provisional definition promotes much-needed conceptual precision in how communication researchers and educators define and assess tailored information provision in clinical consultations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors (E. Smets, J. Menichetti, H. Lie and J. Gerwing) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Information exchange between physician and patient is crucial to achieve patient involvement, shared decision making and treatment adherence. No reliable method exists for measuring how much information physicians provide in a complex, unscripted medical conversation, nor how much of this information patients recall. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a measurement system designed to compare complex orally provided information to patient recall., Methods: The development of the complex information transfer measurement system required nine methodological steps. Core activities were data collection, definition of information units and the first draft of a codebook, refinement through independent coding and consensus, and reliability testing. Videotapes of physician-patient consultations based on a standardized scenario and post-consultation interviews with patients constituted the data. The codebook was developed from verbatim transcriptions of the videotapes. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using a random selection of 10% of the statements in the transcriptions., Results: Thirtyfour transcriptions of visits and interviews were collected. We developed a set of rules for defining a single unit of information, defined detailed criteria for exclusion and inclusion of relevant units of information, and outlined systematic counting procedures. In the refinement phase, we established a system for comparing the information provided by the physician with what the patient recalled. While linguistic and conceptual issues arose during the process, coders still achieved good inter-rater reliability, with intra-class correlation for patient recall: 0.723, and for doctors: 0.761. A full codebook is available as an appendix., Conclusions: A measurement system specifically aimed at quantifying complex unscripted information exchange may be a useful addition to the tools for evaluating the results of health communication training and randomized controlled trials.

With increasing global migration, health care providers and patients may lack a shared language. Interpreters help to secure understanding. Doctors and patients cannot evaluate how the interpreter translates their utterances; however, they can see hand movements, which can provide a window into the interpretation process. While research on natural language use has acknowledged the semiotic contribution of co-speech gestures (i.e., spontaneous hand and arm movements that are tightly synchronized with speech), their role in interpreted interactions is unstudied. We aimed to reveal whether gestures could shed light on the interpreting process and to develop a systematic methodology for investigating gesture-use in interpreted encounters. Using data from authentic, interpreted clinical interactions, we identified and analyzed gestures referring to the body (i.e., body-oriented gestures). Data were 76 min of video-recorded doctor-patient consultations at two UK inner-city general practices in 2009. Using microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue, we revealed how participants used body-oriented gestures and how interpreters transmitted them. Participants used 264 body-oriented gestures (doctors = 113, patients = 54, interpreters = 97). Gestures served an important semiotic function: On average, 70% of the doctors' and patients' gestures provided information not conveyed in speech. When interpreters repeated the primary participants' body-oriented gestures, they were highly likely to accompany the gesture with speech that retained the overall utterance meaning. Conversely, when interpreters did not repeat the gesture, their speech tended to lack that information as well. A qualitative investigation into the local effect of gesture transmission suggested a means for quality control: visible discrepancies in interpretation generated opportunities to check understanding. The findings suggest that clinical communication training could benefit from including skills to understand and attend to gestures. The analysis developed here provides a promising schema and method for future research informing clinical guidelines and training., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Occasionally mishaps in an investigation lead to new understandings. We report how a videotaped emotional discussion among a family after they had received information about their relative's state gave us insight into the minute sources of uncertainty that fueled their confusion., Methods: Based on the themes of the family's discussion, we used a forensic approach to locate distinct sequences of interest in the video and transcript. Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue was performed to understand the most critical sequence. The analysis was supported by questionnaire data., Results: The family's disagreement about the patient's prognosis could be traced to minor differences in how the surgeon and the anesthesiologist had framed the information. In attempting to resolve apparent contradictions, the family realized they were uncertain about the physicians' roles, which amplified the emotional expressions in the discussions. Role confusion could be traced to subtle details in the surgeon's presentation of himself and the surgery., Conclusion: Minor discrepancies in how health care professionals frame information combined with not exploring relatives' emotions may lead to major differences in relatives' perceptions. Doubt about health providers' roles decontextualizes information and reassurance, magnifying uncertainty., Practice Implications: Health providers should present themselves clearly without haste. If more than one provider is involved, joint preparation of the main messages may be necessary., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In 2015, at the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare in New Orleans, USA, we formed a symposium panel to discuss and debate how interdisciplinary research can inform interpreter-mediated medical consultation training. In all our work, a recurring theme is not just the strengths but also the shortcomings of the guidelines proposed in the textbooks and widely used in medical education. This paper is an account of our multidisciplinary reflections on a prominent issue of the lack of attention to interaction in communications, which shed light on the limitations of these guidelines and clinical communication models. We propose that an international network be established for all stakeholders to foster interprofessional and interdisciplinary collaboration for research and clinical interventions, and to inform training and policy making., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aims to explicate efforts for realizing patient-centeredness (PCC) and involvement (SDM) in a difficult decision-making situation. It investigates what communicative strategies a physician used and the immediate, observable consequences for patient participation., Methods: From a corpus of videotaped hospital encounters, one case in which the physician and patient used Norwegian as lingua franca was selected for analysis using conversation analysis (CA). Secondary data were measures of PCC and SDM., Results: Though the physician did extensive interactional work to secure the patient's understanding and acceptance of a treatment recommendation, his persistent attempts did not succeed in generating the patient's participation. In ratings of PCC and SDM, this case scored well above average., Conclusion: Despite the fact that this encounter displays some of the 'best actual practice' of PCC and SDM within the corpus, our analysis of the interaction shows why the strategies were insufficient in the context of a language barrier and possible disagreement., Practice Implications: When facing problems of understanding, agreement and participation in treatment decision-making, relatively good patient centered skills may not suffice. Knowledge about the interactional realization of key activities is needed for developing training targeted at overcoming such challenges., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore how physician efforts to involve patients in medical decisions align with established core elements of shared decision making (SDM)., Methods: Detailed video analysis of two hospital outpatient encounters, selected because the physicians exhibited much effort to involve the patients in decision making, and because the final decisions were not what the physicians had initially recommended. The analysis was supplied by physician, patient, and observer-rated data from a total of 497 encounters collected during the same original study. The observer-rated data confirmed that these physicians demonstrated above average patient-centred skills in this material., Results: Behaviours of these two not trained physicians demonstrated confusion about how to perform SDM. Information provided to the patients was imprecise and ambiguous. Insufficient patient involvement did not prompt the physicians to change strategy. Physician and patient reports indicated awareness of suboptimal communication., Conclusion: Inadequate SDM in hospital encounters may introduce confusion. Quantitative evaluations by patients and observers may reflect much effort rather than process quality., Practice Implications: SDM may be discredited because the medical community has not acquired the necessary skills to perform it, even if it is ethically and legally mandated. Training and supervision should follow regulations and guidelines., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To define and operationalize three taught strategies for providing information in interactions with patients using videos collected in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods: This was a qualitative exploratory study embedded in a randomized controlled design, using microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue as an inductive video analysis method to operationalize physicians' use of three information-provision strategies. Data were 34 video-recorded simulated (but unscripted) interactions between 17 physicians and 34 multiple sclerosis patients collected before and after a brief course on information provision. We operationalized (1) mapping the patient's preferences and (2) checking the patient's understanding, and pauses indicative of (3) portioning information.Results: Results are detailed analytical definitions, criteria, and assessable, quantifiable outcomes for each of the three strategies. Patients responded to portioning pauses as expected: whereas 91% of these pauses elicited an immediate patient response, only 23% of non-portioning pauses did so.Conclusion: Our methods revealed how to define and evaluate information sharing strategies physicians used within the contingencies of clinical interaction.Practice Implications: Findings provide applicable methods to teach, analyze, and evaluate information sharing strategies and indications for further training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]