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.

This article explores the recognitionality of references to time as a participants’ category and resource in social interaction. In short, we ask: How does referring to time in more vs. less recognitional ways contribute to the formation and ascription of action in context, and how can analysts of social interaction approach this dimension of reference in ways that remain grounded in the details of participant joint-conduct? After considering some of the complexities of recognitionality as an analytic category, we turn our focus to formulations built with when (e.g., “when I was in the Marine Corps”). Our aim in examining whenformulations in a range of different sequential and action environments is to use this exploration as a means to further develop the concept of recognitionality, namely as a phenomenon that is best understood as scalar and multidimensional in nature. We then probe what implications this has for our understanding of the preference organization of references to time (and other ontological categories), and conclude by presenting some possible avenues for future research.

The quality of healthcare communication can impact both experiences and outcomes. We highlight aspects of communication that can be systematically examined using Conversation Analysis (CA) and provide guidance about how researchers can incorporate CA into healthcare studies. CA is a qualitative method for studying naturally occurring communication by analyzing recurrent, systematic practices of verbal and nonverbal behavior. CA involves examining audio- or video-recorded conversations and their transcriptions to identify practices speakers use to communicate and interpret behavior. We explain what distinguishes CA from other methods that study communication and highlightthree accessible CA approaches that researchers can use in their research design, analysis, or implementation ofcommunication interventions. Specifically, these approaches focus on how  talk is produced (specific words, framing, andsyntax), by whom,  and when  it occurs in the conversation. These approaches can be leveraged to generate hypothesesand to identify patterns of behavior that inform empirically driven communication interventions.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer with complex treatment options. Trusting patient-clinician relationships are essential to promote effective shared decision-making that aligns best clinical practices with patient values and preferences. This study sought to shed light on the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians.MethodsNineteen individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with MM patients within 2 years of initial diagnosis or relapse for this qualitative study. Interviews were recorded and transcripts were coded thematically.ResultsWe identified three main themes: (1) externally validated trust describes patients' predisposition to trust or distrust clinicians based on factors outside of patient-clinician interactions; (2) internally validated trust describes how patients develop trust based on interactions with specific clinicians. Internally validated trust is driven primarily by clinician communication practices that demonstrate competence, responsiveness, listening, honesty, and empathy; and (3) trust in relation to shared decision-making describes how patients relate the feeling of trust, or lack thereof, to the process of shared decision-making.ConclusionMany factors contribute to the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. While some are outside of clinicians' control, others derive from clinician behaviors and interpersonal communication skills. These findings suggest the possibility that trust can be enhanced through communication training or shared decision-making tools that emphasize relational communication. Given the important role trust plays in shared decision-making, clinicians working with MM patients should prioritize establishing positive, trusting relationships.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and patients report frustration after primary care visits for chronic pain. The need to shift between multiple clinical topics to address competing demands during visits may contribute to this frustration.OBJECTIVE: This study creates a novel measure, “visit linearity,” to assess visit organization and examines whether visits that require less shifting back and forth between topics are associated with better patient and physician visit experiences. It also explores whether visit linearity differs depending on the following: (1) whether or not pain is a major topic of the visit and (2) whether or not pain is the first topic raised.DESIGN: This study analyzed 41 video-recorded visits using inductive, qualitative analysis informed by conversation analysis. We used linear regression to evaluate associations between visit organization and post-visit measures of participant experience.PARTICIPANTS: Patients were established adult patients planning to discuss pain management during routine primary care. Physicians were internal or family medicine residents.MAIN MEASURES: Visit linearity, total topics, return topics, topic shifts, time per topic, visit duration, pain main topic, pain first topic, patient experience, and physician difficulty.KEY RESULTS: Visits had a mean of 8.1 total topics (standard deviation (SD)=3.46), 14.5 topic shifts (SD=6.28), and 1.9 topic shifts per topic (SD=0.62). Less linear visits (higher topic shifts to topic ratio) were associated with greater physician visit difficulty (β=7.28, p

This study examines patient-initiated additional concern presentations in general surgery visits to assess which factors contribute to them getting “helped.” Concern presentations were analyzed for a variety of design features (e.g., social action (inquiry vs. informing), when patients initiate during a visit, how patients fit topic to previous talk or activity) and contextual factors (e.g., concern falls inside or outside surgeon’s domain of expertise, chronic vs. acute concern-types, the history of the patient-physician relationship). This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining case-level conversation analysis and aggregatelevel statistical analysis. Data are video recordings of office visits from 2013–2015, with a longitudinal focus of following the same patients across time. In total, 62 patients spanning 175 visits were analyzed. 377 patient-initiated additional concerns were found, and 188 received help. Several factors were found to increase the likelihood of patients’ concerns getting helped such as designing the concern as an inquiry, raising the concern early in the visit, and mentioning the concern more than once. These findings can help guide patients on how to better design additional concerns presentations to receive help and can benefit physicians by identifying more subtle practices patients are already using to broach concerns to help reduce unnoticed or unhelped concerns.

BackgroundAgenda setting is associated with more efficient care and better patient experience. This study develops a taxonomy of visit opening styles to assess use of agenda and non-agenda setting visit openings and their effects on participant experience.MethodsThis observational study analyzed 83 video recorded US primary care visits at a single academic medical center in California involving family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (n = 49) and patients (n = 83) with chronic pain on opioids. Using conversation analysis, we developed a coding scheme that assessed the presence of agenda setting, distinct visit opening styles, and the number of total topics, major topics, surprise patient topics, and returns to prior topics discussed. Exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of agenda setting and visit opening styles with post-visit measures of both patient experience and physician perception of visit difficulty.ResultsWe identified 2 visit opening styles representing agenda setting (agenda eliciting, agenda reframing) and 3 non-agenda setting opening styles (open-ended question, patient launch, physician launch). Agenda setting was only performed in 11% of visits and was associated with fewer surprise patient topics than visits without agenda setting (mean (SD) 2.67 (1.66) versus 4.28 (3.23), p = 0.03).ConclusionsIn this study of patients with chronic pain, resident physicians rarely performed agenda setting, whether defined in terms of "agenda eliciting" or "agenda re-framing." Agenda setting was associated with fewer surprise topics. Understanding the communication context and outcomes of agenda setting may inform better use of this communication tool in primary care  practice.

Patient-clinician interactions are central to technical and interpersonal processes of medical care. Video recordings of these interactions provide a rich source of data and a stable record that allows for repeated viewing and analysis. Collecting video recordings requires navigating ethical and feasibility constraints; further, realizing the potential of video requires specialized research skills. Interdisciplinary collabo-rations involving practitioners, medical educators, and social scientists are needed to provide the clinical perspectives, methodological expertise, and capacity needed to make collecting video worthwhile. Such collaboration ensures that research questions will be based on scholarship from the social sciences, resonate with practice, and produce results that fit educational needs. However, the literature lacks suggested practices for building and sustaining interdisciplinary research collaborations involving video data. In this paper, we provide concrete advice based on our experience collecting and analyzing a single set of video-recorded clinical encounters and non-video data, which have so far yielded nine distinct studies. We present the research process, timeline, and advice based on our experience with interdisciplinary collaboration. We found that integrating disciplines and traditions required patience, compromise, and mutual respect; learning from each other enhanced our enjoyment of the process, our productivity, and the clinical relevance of our research.

BackgroundPhysicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.ObjectiveTo identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments DESIGN: This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors.ParticipantsEighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY RESULTS: Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%).ConclusionsPatient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.

Objective: Physicians are trained on how to best solicit additional concerns from patients. What has not yet been studied is when and how physicians initiate additional concerns. This analysis focuses on when and how general surgeons share their noticings of medical problems unrelated to the upcoming (or recent) procedures that patients are being seen for.Methods: 281 video-recorded medical encounters with 95 patients from a rural Texas (USA) general surgery private practice were reviewed for surgeon noticings of additional concerns. In addition to analyzing the videos using Conversation Analysis, the author conducted 9 months of ethnographic research to gain understanding of the local setting.Results: 22 cases of surgeon noticings were found in 17 visits and were typically detected during the physical examination. Surgeons shared noticings adjacent to their discovery and predominantly framed noticings as bad news tellings. This framing helped mitigate 4 dilemmas surgeons encountered: unknown patient awareness ofconcern, surgeons’ rights to assess areas unrelated to upcoming (or recent) procedures, not meeting the desired health optimization outcome & putting additional burden on patients, and other contextual factors specific to the visit that make sharing a noticing difficult. In addition to alerting patients and potentially activating earlier treatment, sharing noticings can also function to help build physician-patient relationships across time and curtail future patient worry.Implications: Each surgeon noticing is potentially a concern that may have otherwise remained undetected and untreated, and speaks to the importance of physicians taking time to conduct thorough physical examinations.