Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings.

Background and Aims: Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. Methods: Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2–4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross‐examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. Results: We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow‐up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. Conclusions: In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. Patient/Public Contribution: A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow‐up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]