Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Original Research

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

Authors: Naykky Singh Ospina, MD, MSc, Kari A. Phillips, MD, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez, MD, MSc, Ana Castaneda-Guarderas, MD, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Pharm D, phD, Megan E. Branda, MS, Victor M. Montori, MD MSc

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cole SA, Bird J. The Medical Interview : The Three Function Approach. Third edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. Cole SA, Bird J. The Medical Interview : The Three Function Approach. Third edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013.
2.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.
3.
go back to reference Scholl I, Zill JM, Harter M, Dirmaier J. An integrative model of patient-centeredness—a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e107828.CrossRef Scholl I, Zill JM, Harter M, Dirmaier J. An integrative model of patient-centeredness—a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e107828.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gobat N, Kinnersley P, Gregory JW, Robling M. What is agenda setting in the clinical encounter? Consensus from literature review and expert consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:822–9.CrossRef Gobat N, Kinnersley P, Gregory JW, Robling M. What is agenda setting in the clinical encounter? Consensus from literature review and expert consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:822–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mauksch LB, Dugdale DC, Dodson S, Epstein R. Relationship, communication, and efficiency in the medical encounter: creating a clinical model from a literature review. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1387–95.CrossRef Mauksch LB, Dugdale DC, Dodson S, Epstein R. Relationship, communication, and efficiency in the medical encounter: creating a clinical model from a literature review. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1387–95.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Beckman HB, Frankel RM. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:692–6.CrossRef Beckman HB, Frankel RM. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:692–6.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Marvel MK, Epstein RM, Flowers K, Beckman HB. Soliciting the patient’s agenda: have we improved? JAMA. 1999;281:283–7.CrossRef Marvel MK, Epstein RM, Flowers K, Beckman HB. Soliciting the patient’s agenda: have we improved? JAMA. 1999;281:283–7.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dyche L, Swiderski D. The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:267–70.CrossRef Dyche L, Swiderski D. The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:267–70.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Frankel RM, Salyers MP, Bonfils KA, Oles SK, Matthias MS. Agenda setting in psychiatric consultations: an exploratory study. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2013;36:195–201.CrossRef Frankel RM, Salyers MP, Bonfils KA, Oles SK, Matthias MS. Agenda setting in psychiatric consultations: an exploratory study. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2013;36:195–201.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan JM, Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan JM, Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.
11.
go back to reference Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMed Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Gionfriddo MR, Ospina NS, et al. Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4:706–16.CrossRef Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Gionfriddo MR, Ospina NS, et al. Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4:706–16.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Montori VM, Kunneman M, Brito JP. Shared decision making and improving health care: the answer is not in. JAMA. 2017;318:617–8.CrossRef Montori VM, Kunneman M, Brito JP. Shared decision making and improving health care: the answer is not in. JAMA. 2017;318:617–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Montori VM, Kunneman M, Hargraves I, Brito JP. Shared decision making and the internist. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;37:1–6.CrossRef Montori VM, Kunneman M, Hargraves I, Brito JP. Shared decision making and the internist. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;37:1–6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kunneman M, Engelhardt EG, Ten Hove FL, et al. Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: missed opportunities for shared decision making. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:134–9.CrossRef Kunneman M, Engelhardt EG, Ten Hove FL, et al. Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: missed opportunities for shared decision making. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:134–9.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kunneman M, Branda M, Hargraves I, Pieterse HM, Montori V. Fostering choice awareness for shared decision making: a secondary analysis of video-recorded clinical encounters. Mayo Clin Proc Inn Qual Out. 2018;2:60–8.CrossRef Kunneman M, Branda M, Hargraves I, Pieterse HM, Montori V. Fostering choice awareness for shared decision making: a secondary analysis of video-recorded clinical encounters. Mayo Clin Proc Inn Qual Out. 2018;2:60–8.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:505–16.CrossRef Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:505–16.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Tai-Seale M, Olson CW, Li J, et al. Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36:655–62.CrossRef Tai-Seale M, Olson CW, Li J, et al. Electronic health record logs indicate that physicians split time evenly between seeing patients and desktop medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36:655–62.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Walsh SH. The clinician’s perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ. 2004;328:1184–7.CrossRef Walsh SH. The clinician’s perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ. 2004;328:1184–7.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Brito JP, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, et al. Development and pilot testing of an encounter tool for shared decision making about the treatment of Graves’ disease. Thyroid. 2015;25:1191–8.CrossRef Brito JP, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Gionfriddo MR, et al. Development and pilot testing of an encounter tool for shared decision making about the treatment of Graves’ disease. Thyroid. 2015;25:1191–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference LeBlanc A, Herrin J, Williams MD, et al. Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1761–70.CrossRef LeBlanc A, Herrin J, Williams MD, et al. Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1761–70.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K, et al. Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0128063.CrossRef LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K, et al. Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial II. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0128063.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, et al. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124:549–56.CrossRef Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, et al. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124:549–56.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Breslin M, Yawn BP, Ting HH, Montori VM. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications. Med Care. 2010;48:S153–8.CrossRef Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Breslin M, Yawn BP, Ting HH, Montori VM. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications. Med Care. 2010;48:S153–8.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–8. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–8.
26.
go back to reference Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller A, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009:12:38–44. Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller A, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009:12:38–44.
27.
go back to reference Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:87–91.CrossRef Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:87–91.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.CrossRef Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kreft IGG, de Leeuw J. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1998. Kreft IGG, de Leeuw J. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1998.
30.
go back to reference Bünemann C. Chenot JF, Blank W. Further education on general medicine? A decision aid for medical students. Z Allgemeinmed. 2008; 84: 532–372009.CrossRef Bünemann C. Chenot JF, Blank W. Further education on general medicine? A decision aid for medical students. Z Allgemeinmed. 2008; 84: 532–372009.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Langewitz W, Denz M, Keller A, Kiss A, Ruttimann S, Wossmer B. Spontaneous talking time at start of consultation in outpatient clinic: cohort study. BMJ. 2002;325:682–3.CrossRef Langewitz W, Denz M, Keller A, Kiss A, Ruttimann S, Wossmer B. Spontaneous talking time at start of consultation in outpatient clinic: cohort study. BMJ. 2002;325:682–3.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Rabinowitz I, Luzzati R, Tamir A, Reis S. Length of patient’s monologue, rate of completion, and relation to other components of the clinical encounter: observational intervention study in primary care. BMJ. 2004;328:501–2.CrossRef Rabinowitz I, Luzzati R, Tamir A, Reis S. Length of patient’s monologue, rate of completion, and relation to other components of the clinical encounter: observational intervention study in primary care. BMJ. 2004;328:501–2.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Mauksch LB. Questioning a taboo: physicians’ interruptions during interactions with patients. JAMA. 2017;317:1021–2.CrossRef Mauksch LB. Questioning a taboo: physicians’ interruptions during interactions with patients. JAMA. 2017;317:1021–2.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Phillips KA, Ospina NS. Physicians interrupting patients. JAMA. 2017;318:93–4.CrossRef Phillips KA, Ospina NS. Physicians interrupting patients. JAMA. 2017;318:93–4.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Montori VM. Why We Revolt. A Patient Revolution for Careful and Kind Care. Rochester, NY: The Patient Revolution; 2017. Montori VM. Why We Revolt. A Patient Revolution for Careful and Kind Care. Rochester, NY: The Patient Revolution; 2017.
Metadata
Title
Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters
Authors
Naykky Singh Ospina, MD, MSc
Kari A. Phillips, MD
Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez, MD, MSc
Ana Castaneda-Guarderas, MD
Michael R. Gionfriddo, Pharm D, phD
Megan E. Branda, MS
Victor M. Montori, MD MSc
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2019 Go to the issue

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

Chronically Happy