Are clinicians' self-reported empathic concern and perspective-taking traits associated with their response to patient emotions?: Communication Studies

Which clinician responses to emotion are associated with more positive patient experiences of communication?

OBJECTIVES

To identify communication strategies that may improve clinician-patient interactions, we assessed the association between clinician response to emotion and patient ratings of communication.

METHODS

From a cohort of 1817 clinician-patient encounters, we designed a retrospective case-control study by identifying 69 patients who rated their interpersonal care as low-quality and 69 patients who rated their care as high-quality. We used the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES) to identify patient emotional expressions and clinician responses. Using mixed-effects logistic regression, we evaluated the association between clinician responses to patients' emotions and patient ratings of their interpersonal care.

RESULTS

In adjusted analyses, explicit responses that reduced space for further emotional communication were associated with high ratings of care (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.25, 2.99); non-explicit responses providing additional space were associated with low ratings (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.82). In terms of specific response types, neutral/passive responses were associated with low ratings (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), whereas giving information/advice was associated with high ratings (OR, 95% 1.91 CI 1.17-3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients may prefer responses to their expressed emotions that demonstrate clinician engagement, with or without expressions of empathy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings may inform educational interventions to improve clinician-patient communication.

From fixer to facilitator: an interpretative phenomenological study of diabetes person-centred counselling and empowerment-based education

Background

The purpose of this study is to explore the professional and personal experiences of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals during and following diabetes counselling and empowerment-based education.

Methods

Everyone who had participated in a diabetes counselling and empowerment course between 2008-2016 was invited to respond to an online survey and follow-up telephone interview if willing. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The research team used interpretative phenomenology to identify core themes from both the survey and telephone interviews and which captured the impact of empowerment-based education.

Results

22 doctors, nurses, dieticians, and psychologists completed an online questionnaire. 10 subsequently took part in telephone interviews. Empowerment-based education changed them from fixers to facilitators. Their transformation included a sense of becoming authentic, 'being the way I want to be' in clinical practice and becoming more self-reflective. This affected them personally as well as reinvigorating them professionally.

Conclusions

The participants described a personal and professional journey of transformation that included discovering their person-centred philosophy. They adopted a consultation structure that empowered people with diabetes to care for themselves. It can be speculated that participants' experience of transformation may also guard against professional burnout.

Taxonomy and effectiveness of clinician agenda-setting questions in routine ambulatory encounters: A mixed method study

OBJECTIVES

Despite decades of communication training, studies repeatedly demonstrate that clinicians fail to elicit patients' agendas. Our goal was to provide clinicians with actionable guidance about the effectiveness of agenda-soliciting questions.

METHODS

We coded clinician agenda-soliciting questions and patient responses in audio-recorded ambulatory encounters at an urban academic hospital. To evaluate the association between question type and odds of the patient raising a concern, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 346 agenda-soliciting questions within 138 visits (mean 2.51/visit; range 0-9). Agenda-soliciting questions were categorized as personal state inquiries (37%, "How are you?"), feeling-focused (5% "How're you feeling?"), problem-focused (12%; "Are you having any problems"), direct solicitations (3%; "Anything you want to discuss today?"), "what else" (3%), "anything else" (14%), leading (16%; "Nothing else today?"), and space-reducing (11% "Anything else? Smoking?"). Patients raised a concern in response to 107 clinician questions (27%). Patients were more likely to raise a concern to direct solicitation (OR 22.95, 95% CI 2.62-200.70) or "what else" (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.05-20.77) questions.

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective agenda-soliciting questions are used least frequently by clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should elicit patient agendas by using direct language, and solicit additional concerns using "what else" vs. "anything else" questions.

Clinician Response to Patient Emotion: Impact on Subsequent Communication and Visit Length

PURPOSE

It is widely cited-based on limited evidence-that attending to a patient's emotions results in shorter visits because patients are less likely to repeat themselves if they feel understood. We evaluated the association of clinician responses to patient emotions with subsequent communication and visit length.

METHODS

We audio-recorded 41 clinicians with 342 unique patients and used the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES) to time stamp patient emotional expressions and categorize clinician responses. We used random-intercept multilevel-regression models to evaluate the associations of clinician responses with timing of the expressed emotion, patient repetition, and subsequent length of visit.

RESULTS

The mean visit length was 30.4 minutes, with 1,028 emotional expressions total. The majority of clinician responses provided space for the patient to elaborate on the emotion (81%) and were nonexplicit (56%). As each minute passed, clinicians had lower odds of providing space (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and higher odds of being explicit (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03). Emotions were more likely to be repeated when clinicians provided space (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.66-3.27), and less likely to be repeated when clinicians were explicit (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80). Visits were shorter (β = -0.98 minutes; 95% CI, -2.19 to 0.23) when clinicians' responses explicitly focused on patient affect.

CONCLUSION

If saving time is a goal, clinicians should consider responses that explicitly address a patient's emotion. Arguments for providing space for patients to discuss emotional issues should focus on other benefits, including patients' well-being.