Information giving, managing, and understanding in clinical encounters

'My cousin said to me . . .' Patients' use of third-party references to facilitate shared decision-making during naturally occurring primary care consultations

In this paper, we explore the ways in which patients invoke third parties to gain decision-making influence in clinical consultations. The patients' role in decision-making processes is often overlooked, and this interactional practice has rarely been systematically studied. Through a contextual narrative exploration of 42 naturally occurring consultations between patients (aged 22-84) and general practitioners (GPs) in England, we seek to fill this gap. By exploring how and why patients invoke third parties during discussions about medical treatments, who they refer to, what kind of knowledge their referents possess, and how GPs respond, our main aim is to capture the functions and implications of this interactional practice in relation to decision-making processes. Patients refer to third parties during decision-making processes in most of the consultations, usually to argue for and against certain treatment options, and the GPs recognise these utterances as pro-and-contra arguments. This enables patients to counter the GPs' professional knowledge through various knowledge-sources and encourage the GPs to target their specific concerns. By attributing arguments to third parties, patients claim decision-making influence without threatening the GPs' authority and expertise, which their disadvantaged epistemic position demands. Thereby, patients become able to negotiate their role and their epistemic position, to influence the agenda-setting, and to take part in the decision-making process, without being directly confrontational. Invoking third parties is a non-confrontational way of proposing and opposing treatment options that might facilitate successful patient participation in decision-making processes, and so limit the risk of patients being wronged in their capacity as knowers.

'It feels like my metabolism has shut down'. Negotiating interactional roles and epistemic positions in a primary care consultation

INTRODUCTION

Our aim is to explore the ways in which a patient and a general practitioner (GP) negotiate knowledge claims stemming from different epistemic domains while dealing with a mismatch between experiential and biomedical knowledge during the clinical consultation. We interpret their interaction in relation to the sociocultural context in which their negotiation is embedded and identify factors facilitating their successful negotiation (a medical error is avoided).

METHODS

Based on a narrative analysis of a verbatim transcript of a complete naturally occurring primary care consultation, we explore the moment-to-moment unfolding of talk between the patient and the GP (two women).

FINDINGS

The patient experiences symptoms of what she interprets as a thyroid condition, and indirectly asks for medication. She presents her case by drawing on experiential knowledge ('it feels like my metabolism has shut down') and biomedical knowledge (while suggesting a diagnosis and a diagnostic test). The GP informs her that her thyroid blood tests are normal and uses biomedical knowledge to explain why she turns down the patient's request. This stages a potential conflict between the patient's embodied experiential knowledge and the doctor's biomedical knowledge. However, during their encounter, the patient and the GP manage to co-construct the patient's illness story and make shared decisions about further actions.

CONCLUSION

The transition from potential conflict to consensus is a result of the mutual efforts of two parties: a patient who persistently claims experiential as well as biomedical knowledge while at the same time deferring to the GP's professional knowledge, and a GP who maintains her epistemic authority while also acknowledging the patient's experiential and biomedical knowledge.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Our empirical data are sourced from a data archive and patients were not involved in the design or conduct of the study, but our study is based on a naturally occurring clinical consultation with a patient.

"I'm not the doctor; I'm just the patient": Patient agency and shared decision-making in naturally occurring primary care consultations

OBJECTIVES

To explore interactional processes in which clinical decisions are made in situ during medical consultations, particularly the ways in which patients show agency in decision-making processes by proposing and opposing actions, and which normative dimensions and role-expectations their engagement entail.

METHODS

Narrative analysis of verbatim transcripts of 22 naturally occurring consultations, sourced from a corpus of 212 consultations between general practitioners and patients in England. After thematically coding the whole dataset, we selected 22 consultations with particularly engaged patients for in-depth analysis.

RESULTS

Patients oppose further actions more often than they propose actions, and they oppose more directly than they propose. When they explain why they propose and oppose something, they reveal their values. Patients' role-performance changes throughout the consultations.

CONCLUSION

Assertive patients claim - and probably also achieve - most influence when they oppose actions directly and elaborate why. Patients display ambiguous role-expectations. In final concluding stages of decision-making processes, patients usually defer to GPs' authority.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should be attentive to the ways in which patients want to engage in decision-making throughout the whole consultation, with awareness of normative dimensions of both process and content, and the ways in which patient's actions are constrained by their institutional position.

Effects of Physicians' Information Giving on Patient Outcomes: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Providing diagnostic and treatment information to patients is a core clinical skill, but evidence for the effectiveness of different information-giving strategies is inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to investigate the reported effects of empirically tested communication strategies for providing information on patient-related outcomes: information recall and (health-related) behaviors.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant bibliographies were systematically searched from the inception to April 24, 2020, without restrictions, for articles testing information-giving strategies for physicians (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019115791). Pairs of independent reviewers identified randomized controlled studies with a low risk of selection bias as from the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Main outcomes were grouped into patient information recall and behavioral outcomes (e.g., alcohol consumption, weight loss, participation in screening). Due to high heterogeneity in the data on effects of interventions, these outcomes were descriptively reported, together with studies', interventions', and information-giving strategies' characteristics. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 9423 articles were included. Eight studies, reporting 10 interventions, assessed patient information recall: mostly conducted in experimental settings and testing a single information-giving strategy. Four of the ten interventions reported significant increase in recall. Nine studies assessed behavioral outcomes, mostly in real-life clinical settings and testing multiple information-giving strategies simultaneously. The heterogeneity in this group of studies was high. Eight of the nine interventions reported a significant positive effect on objectively and subjectively measured patients' behavioral outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Using specific framing strategies for achieving specific communication goals when providing information to patients appears to have positive effects on information recall and patient health-related behaviors. The heterogeneity observed in this group of studies testifies the need for a more consistent methodological and conceptual agenda when testing medical information-giving strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019115791.

The rescue therapy in epilepsy project Part 2: Insights from people with epilepsy and families on expert-derived preferred practices

BACKGROUND

The number and type of therapies available to treat seizure clusters (SCs) or periods of increased seizure activity have risen in recent years. Gaps still exist on defining SCs, when to use them, and educating patients and families. The Epilepsy Foundation developed and published expert-derived consensus on preferred practices for rescue therapies (RTs), 79% of which were agreed upon by a larger group of healthcare professionals (HCPs). This paper describes insights from people with epilepsy (PWE) and families/caregivers (FCGs) on these practices to assess similarities and trends between PWE, FCGs, an expert panel, and HCPs.

METHODS

Online survey including expert-derived preferred practices for RT was completed by a convenience sample of 176 PWE/FCGs. Respondents rated agreement with each preferred practice using a 0-8 point Likert scale. Results were examined by relationship to epilepsy, prior use of RTs, and comparison to the expert panel and larger group of HCPs.

RESULTS

41.5% of respondents were PWE and 54.6% were FCGs; 70% represented PWE age 18 and over or those who cared for adults with epilepsy. Levels of agreement were similar to those of HCPs - consensus was obtained on 79% of preferred practices. Differences were noted on which items achieved consensus and strength of consensus for some items. Differences between PWE and FCG, and between those who had and had not previously used a RT were found. A proposed definition of SCs did not reach consensus, but there was strong consensus for individualized seizure action plans and more RT education.