Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters

Naykky Singh Ospina, Kari A. Phillips, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Ana Castaneda-Guarderas, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Megan E. Branda, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient’s agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient’s discourse. Objective: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients’ concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. Design and Participants: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. Main Measures: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. Key Results: Clinicians elicited the patient’s agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient’s agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7–22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3–19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. Conclusions: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient’s agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient’s agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient’s agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-5
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jul 2 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Patient-Centered Care
Primary Care Physicians
Primary Health Care
Patient Care
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Singh Ospina, N., Phillips, K. A., Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R., Castaneda-Guarderas, A., Gionfriddo, M. R., Branda, M. E., & Montori, V. M. (Accepted/In press). Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5

Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters. / Singh Ospina, Naykky; Phillips, Kari A.; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Castaneda-Guarderas, Ana; Gionfriddo, Michael R.; Branda, Megan E.; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, 02.07.2018, p. 1-5.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Singh Ospina, N, Phillips, KA, Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R, Castaneda-Guarderas, A, Gionfriddo, MR, Branda, ME & Montori, VM 2018, 'Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters', Journal of General Internal Medicine, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5
Singh Ospina N, Phillips KA, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, Branda ME et al. Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018 Jul 2;1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5
Singh Ospina, Naykky ; Phillips, Kari A. ; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene ; Castaneda-Guarderas, Ana ; Gionfriddo, Michael R. ; Branda, Megan E. ; Montori, Victor Manuel. / Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018 ; pp. 1-5.
@article{bf9e3fe9d1404cd5907bed0b12586b21,
title = "Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters",
abstract = "Background: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient’s agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient’s discourse. Objective: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients’ concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. Design and Participants: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. Main Measures: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. Key Results: Clinicians elicited the patient’s agenda in 40 of 112 (36{\%}) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49{\%}) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20{\%}); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient’s agenda (34 vs. 37{\%} in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67{\%}) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7–22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3–19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. Conclusions: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient’s agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient’s agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient’s agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.",
author = "{Singh Ospina}, Naykky and Phillips, {Kari A.} and Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez and Ana Castaneda-Guarderas and Gionfriddo, {Michael R.} and Branda, {Megan E.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--5",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters

AU - Singh Ospina, Naykky

AU - Phillips, Kari A.

AU - Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene

AU - Castaneda-Guarderas, Ana

AU - Gionfriddo, Michael R.

AU - Branda, Megan E.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2018/7/2

Y1 - 2018/7/2

N2 - Background: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient’s agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient’s discourse. Objective: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients’ concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. Design and Participants: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. Main Measures: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. Key Results: Clinicians elicited the patient’s agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient’s agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7–22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3–19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. Conclusions: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient’s agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient’s agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient’s agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

AB - Background: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient’s agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient’s discourse. Objective: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients’ concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. Design and Participants: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. Main Measures: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. Key Results: Clinicians elicited the patient’s agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient’s agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7–22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3–19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. Conclusions: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient’s agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient’s agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient’s agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049597261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049597261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5

DO - 10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 5

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

ER -