Anatomy of diagnosis in a clinical encounter: how clinicians discuss uncertainty with patients.

Clinical reasoning Diagnostic uncertainty Diagnostic utterances Primary care Qualitative methods

Journal

BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 06 2022
Historique:
received: 03 01 2022
accepted: 12 06 2022
entrez: 17 6 2022
pubmed: 18 6 2022
medline: 22 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Studies consider the clinical encounter as linear, comprising six phases (opening, problem presentation, history-taking, physical examination, diagnosis, treatment and closing). This study utilizes formal conversation analysis to explore patient-physician interactions and understanding diagnostic utterances during these phases. This study is a qualitative sub-analysis that explores how the diagnosis process, along with diagnostic uncertainty, are addressed during 28 urgent care visits. We analyzed physicians' hypothesis-generation process by focusing on: location of diagnostic utterances during the encounter; whether certain/uncertain diagnostic utterances were revised throughout the encounter; and how physicians tested their hypothesis-generation and managed uncertainty. We recruited 7 primary care physicians (PCPs) and their 28 patients from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in 3 urgent care settings. Encounters were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed inductively and deductively, using formal content and conversation analysis. We identified 62 diagnostic communication utterances in 12 different clinical situations. In most (24/28, 86%) encounters, the diagnosis process was initiated before the diagnosis phase (57% during history taking and 64% during physical examination). In 17 encounters (61%), a distinct diagnosis phase was not observed. Findings show that the diagnosis process is nonlinear in two ways. First, nonlinearity was observed when diagnostic utterances occurred throughout the encounter, with the six encounter phases overlapping, integrating elements of one phase with another. Second, nonlinearity was noted with respect to the resolution of diagnostic uncertainty, with physicians acknowledging uncertainty when explaining their diagnostic reasoning, even during brief encounters. Diagnosis is often more interactive and nonlinear, and expressions of diagnostic assessments can occur at any point during an encounter, allowing more flexible and potentially more patient-centered communication. These findings are relevant for physicians' training programs and helping clinicians improve their communication skills in managing uncertain diagnoses.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Studies consider the clinical encounter as linear, comprising six phases (opening, problem presentation, history-taking, physical examination, diagnosis, treatment and closing). This study utilizes formal conversation analysis to explore patient-physician interactions and understanding diagnostic utterances during these phases.
METHODS
This study is a qualitative sub-analysis that explores how the diagnosis process, along with diagnostic uncertainty, are addressed during 28 urgent care visits. We analyzed physicians' hypothesis-generation process by focusing on: location of diagnostic utterances during the encounter; whether certain/uncertain diagnostic utterances were revised throughout the encounter; and how physicians tested their hypothesis-generation and managed uncertainty. We recruited 7 primary care physicians (PCPs) and their 28 patients from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in 3 urgent care settings. Encounters were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed inductively and deductively, using formal content and conversation analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 62 diagnostic communication utterances in 12 different clinical situations. In most (24/28, 86%) encounters, the diagnosis process was initiated before the diagnosis phase (57% during history taking and 64% during physical examination). In 17 encounters (61%), a distinct diagnosis phase was not observed. Findings show that the diagnosis process is nonlinear in two ways. First, nonlinearity was observed when diagnostic utterances occurred throughout the encounter, with the six encounter phases overlapping, integrating elements of one phase with another. Second, nonlinearity was noted with respect to the resolution of diagnostic uncertainty, with physicians acknowledging uncertainty when explaining their diagnostic reasoning, even during brief encounters.
CONCLUSIONS
Diagnosis is often more interactive and nonlinear, and expressions of diagnostic assessments can occur at any point during an encounter, allowing more flexible and potentially more patient-centered communication. These findings are relevant for physicians' training programs and helping clinicians improve their communication skills in managing uncertain diagnoses.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35715733
doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01767-y
pii: 10.1186/s12875-022-01767-y
pmc: PMC9205543
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

153

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Soc Sci Med. 2011 Apr;72(7):1105-14
pubmed: 21420214
Fam Pract. 2021 Sep 25;38(5):654-668
pubmed: 33907806
Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 5;172(9):604-609
pubmed: 32311733
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 08;11(3):e0148991
pubmed: 26954234
Am J Med. 2017 Jun;130(6):629-634
pubmed: 28238695
Soc Sci Med. 2019 May;228:262-271
pubmed: 30946982
Sociol Health Illn. 2020 Aug;42 Suppl 1:69-83
pubmed: 31849066
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1631-1636
pubmed: 31025307
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 May;36(5):1404-1406
pubmed: 33575908
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jan;33(1):103-115
pubmed: 28936618
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 18;15:167
pubmed: 25927953
Diagnosis (Berl). 2018 Nov 27;5(4):243-248
pubmed: 30367789
Med Educ. 2011 Oct;45(10):1048-60
pubmed: 21916943
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov;34(11):2586-2591
pubmed: 31197729
Qual Health Res. 2020 Jul;30(8):1287-1300
pubmed: 32249721
Diagnosis (Berl). 2019 Jun 26;6(2):121-126
pubmed: 30851157
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Nov;104(11):2606-2615
pubmed: 34312032
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Jun;24(6):747-51
pubmed: 19333657
Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):415-21
pubmed: 16147794
N Engl J Med. 1980 May 15;302(20):1109-17
pubmed: 7366635
Acad Med. 2019 Sep;94(9):1310-1316
pubmed: 31460922
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Dec;291:114467
pubmed: 34653685
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494
pubmed: 27530239
Health Policy. 2021 May;125(5):634-642
pubmed: 33676778
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Jun;24(3):666-673
pubmed: 29532584
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 3;375(18):1713-1715
pubmed: 27806221
Acad Med. 2014 Jun;89(6):869-75
pubmed: 24871237
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1881-7
pubmed: 19901140

Auteurs

Maram Khazen (M)

Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. maramkh@hotmail.com.

Erin E Sullivan (EE)

Sawyer School of Business, Suffolk University, Boston, USA.
Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Jason Ramos (J)

Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA.

Maria Mirica (M)

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.

Mark Linzer (M)

Department of Medicine at Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Gordon D Schiff (GD)

Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.

Andrew P J Olson (APJ)

University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH