Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: a conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision-making

Using Conversation Analysis to explore assessments of decision-making capacity in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a responsibility to conduct assessments of decision-making capacity that comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Current best-practice guidance, such as the Mental Capacity Code of Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making and mental capacity guidance, does not stipulate how to accomplish this in practice, for example, what questions should be asked, how options and information should be provided. In addition, HCPs struggle to assess the capacity of individuals with communication difficulties.

AIMS

This study was a service evaluation that aimed to objectively analyse, using Conversation Analysis (CA), how real-life capacity assessments were conducted in a hospital setting with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI)-related communication difficulties. A second aim was to establish the feasibility of using CA to advance knowledge of the conduct of capacity assessment.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Four naturally occurring capacity assessments were video-recorded. Recordings involved speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, neuropsychologists and patients with communication difficulties as a result of ABI. The methods and findings of CA were used to investigate the interactional behaviours of HCPs and patients during assessments of decision-making capacity. The analysis was informed by our knowledge of the MCA best practice guidance.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

An overall structure of capacity assessment that enacted some of the best-practice MCA guidance was identified in one recording, consisting of six phases: (i) opening, (ii) preparation, (iii) option-listing, (iv) test, (v) decision, and (vi) close. The preparation phase consisted of two sub-components: information gathering and information giving. Variation from this structure was observed across the dataset, notably in the way in which options were (or were not) presented.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

CA is a feasible empirical method for exploring the structure and conduct of capacity assessments. CA identifies and provides ways of describing interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies including a wider range of health and social care professionals and patients have the potential to inform evidence based training for HCPs who conduct assessments of decision-making capacity.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is poorly implemented in practice. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) find it challenging to assess the decision-making capacity of individuals with communication difficulties, and people with communication difficulties are often excluded from or insufficiently supported during capacity assessment. Research is limited to self-report methods. Observational studies of capacity assessment are required. What this study adds This is the first study to use Conversation Analysis (CA) to explore how capacity assessments are conducted in a hospital setting by HCPs with people with communication difficulties as a result of acquired brain injury. One video-recorded capacity assessment was structured in six phases that aligned with best practice MCA guidance. However, other capacity assessments deviated from this structure. One phase, option listing, varied in practice and options were not always presented. What are the clinical implications of this work? CA revealed interactional behaviours that align with and diverge from best-practice MCA guidance. Future CA studies are warranted to inform training for health and social care professionals who conduct capacity assessments.

Comparisons of Communication in Medical Face-To-Face and Teleconsultations: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought telemedicine into mainstream medical practice (although questions remain over its role in a post-pandemic world). Research suggests that most patients and providers are satisfied with the flexibility and convenience of teleconsultations. However, there is continuing uncertainty about whether this shift has a clinically relevant impact on the quality of doctor-patient interaction. We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing communication in medical face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations. We included only studies which examined communication directly using recordings, excluding studies which used questionnaires or interviews. Studies were appraised using modified versions of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. Our search yielded 25,348 records, of which 22 were included in the final review. These studies were conducted in various medical specialties. Methodologies included approaches based on quantified communication behaviors using coding systems and qualitative studies using microanalytic methods. Except for duration (where there was evidence of face-to-face consultations being longer), no differences between the two modes of communication were consistently identified. In the aggregate, however, statistically significant differences were more prominent in primary care and more likely to favor face-to-face consultations. Qualitative studies also highlighted differences in how communication behaviors were manifested in each modality. Because much of the examined research was conducted in selected or non-routine settings, its applicability to the less selective use of telemedicine during and after the pandemic is limited.

Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide

BACKGROUND

Health decisions occur in a context with omnipresent social influences. Information concerning what other patients decide may present certain interventions as more desirable than others.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how physicians refer to what other people decide in conversations about the relevancy of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (DNAR).

METHODS

We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR is discussed. Data was analysed with conversation analysis.

RESULTS

Reference to what other people decide in regards to CPR is used five times, through reported speech. The reference is generic, and employed as a resource to deal with trouble encountered with the patient's preference, either because it is absent or potentially incompatible with the medical recommendation. In our data, it is a way for physicians to present decisional paths and to steer towards the relevancy of DNAR orders ("Patients tell us 'no futile care'"). By calling out to a sense of membership, it builds towards the patient embracing norms that are associated with a desirable or relevant social group.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing DNAR decisions in terms of what other people opt for is a way for physicians to bring up the eventuality of allowing natural death in a less overt way. Formulating treatment choices in terms of what other people do has implications in terms of supporting autonomous and informed decision making, since it nudges patients towards conformity with what is presented as the most preferable choice on the basis of social norms.

End-of-Life Decision Making Between Doctors and Parents in NICU: The Development and Assessment of a Conversation Analysis Coding Framework

We report the development and assessment of a novel coding framework in the context of research into neonatal end-of-life decision making conversations. Data comprised 27 formal conversations between doctors and parents of critically ill babies, recorded in two neonatal intensive care units. The coding framework was developed from a qualitative analysis of the recordings using the method of conversation analysis (CA). Codes underpinned by our qualitative analysis had in the main moderate to strong agreement (inter-rater reliability) between coders; three codes had lower agreement reflecting the use of euphemisms for death and disability. Coding these interactions confirmed the significance of the doctors' talk in terms of parental involvement in decision-making, whilst highlighting areas warranting further qualitative analysis. This quantifiable representation provides a novel outcome based on evidence that is internal to the conversation rather than influenced by other factors related to the baby's care or outcome.

When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations

Using conversation analysis, this paper investigates when patients exercise their right to refuse treatment in neurology outpatient consultations recorded in the UK's National Health Service in 2012 (n = 224). NHS patients have a right to refuse treatment. However, there are good reasons to suppose that this may be difficult to exercise in practice. We know that clinicians tend to pursue acceptance if it's not forthcoming and those studies that have tracked decision-making trajectories through to their outcomes have shown that clinicians typically convert resistance to acceptance. By contrast, I show that, in 35/40 (87.5 %) cases in which patients sought to refuse treatments made available by a neurologist, they left without a prescription or referral. This paper seeks to explain this apparently anomalous finding. Starting with an example of what I expected to find - a 'duel' that ends with the neurologist persuading the patient to accept treatment - I show that this is, in fact, the exception. By contrast, most of the (attempted) refusals are collaborative, occurring after the neurologist has initiated decision-making in a way that designedly foregrounds the patients' views as the basis for deciding. I show also that, having done so, the neurologists typically continue to treat the decision as subject to the patient's preferences. Thus, the trajectories in my collection - despite including attempts to refuse treatment - do not typically become duels. Rather, patients are refusing treatment in a sequential context that facilitates making their own decision.

Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance

People presenting to the emergency department with self-harm or thoughts of suicide undergo a psychosocial assessment involving recommendations for e.g. contact with other practitioners, charity helplines or coping strategies. In these assessments, patients frequently adopt a negative stance towards potential recommendations. Analysing 35 video-recorded liaison psychiatry psychosocial assessments from an emergency department in England (2018-2019), we ask how these practitioners transform this negative stance into acceptance. We show that practitioners use three steps to anticipate and address negative stance (1) asking questions about the patient's experience/understanding that help the patient to articulate a negative stance (e.g., "what do you think about that"); (2) accepting or validating the reasons underlying the negative stance (e.g., "that's a very real fear and thought to have"); and (3) showing the patient that their reasons were incorporated in the recommendation (e.g., "it's telephone support if you're a bit more uncomfortable with face to face"). These steps personalise the recommendation based on the patient's specific experiences and understanding. When practitioners followed all three of these steps, the patient moved from a negative stance to acceptance in 84% of cases. When practitioners made a recommendation but did not follow all three steps, the patient moved from a negative stance to acceptance in only 14% of cases. It is not the case that each communication practice works on its own to promote patient acceptance, rather Steps 1 and 2 build on each other sequentially to develop and demonstrate shared understanding of the patient's negative stance. In this way, acceptance and validation play an indispensable role in addressing a patient's concerns about treatment.

Treatment recommendations to parents during pediatric tonsillectomy consultations: A mixed methods analysis of surgeon language

OBJECTIVE

A deeper understanding of the dialogue clinicians use to relay treatment recommendations is needed to fully understand their influence on patient decisions about surgery. We characterize how otolaryngologists provide treatment recommendations and suggest a classification framework.

METHODS

We qualitatively analyzed surgeon recommendations from 55 encounters between otolaryngologists and parents of children evaluated for tonsillectomy, and classified recommendation types by phrasing. Multilevel logistic regression identified predictors of recommendation phrasing.

RESULTS

Clinicians provided 183 recommendations (mean/visit = 3.3). We identified four domains of recommendation-phrasing (direct, passive, acceptable, parent-oriented). Direct recommendations (n = 68, 37%) included presumptive statements phrasing intentions as inevitable. Passive recommendations (n = 65, 36%) included practice-based recommendations utilizing general statements. Acceptable recommendations (n = 29, 16%) included speaking positively about treatment options. Parent-oriented recommendations (n = 21, 11%) included parent choice statements. Clinicians more commonly made direct recommendations to parents who were racial minorities (OR = 2.7, p = .02, 95% CI [1.7, 5.9]) or had an annual income <$50,000 (OR = 2.2, p = .03, 95% CI [1.1, 4.4]).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians provide treatment recommendations in a variety of ways that may introduce more or less certainty and choice to parental treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may be implemented into training which increases clinician awareness of dialogue use when recommending treatment alternatives to patients.

'So just to go through the options…': patient choice in the telephone delivery of the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services

This article considers patient choice in mental healthcare services, specifically the ways that choice is enabled or constrained in patient-practitioner spoken interaction. Using the method of conversation analysis (CA), we examine the language used by practitioners when presenting treatment delivery options to patients entering the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service. Analysis of 66 recordings of telephone-delivered IAPT assessment sessions revealed three patterns through which choice of treatment delivery mode was presented to patients: presenting a single delivery mode; incrementally presenting alternative delivery modes, in response to patient resistance; and parallel presentation of multiple delivery mode options. We show that a distinction should be made between (i) a choice to accept or reject the offer of a single option and (ii) a choice that is a selection from a range of options. We show that the three patterns identified are ordered in terms of patient-centredness and shared decision-making. Our findings contribute to sociological work on healthcare interactions that has identified variability in, and variable consequences for, the ways that patients and practitioners negotiate choice and shared decision-making. Findings are discussed in relation to tensions between the political ideology of patient choice and practical service delivery constraints.

Initiating end-of-life decisions with parents of infants receiving neonatal intensive care

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether parent-initiated or doctor-initiated decisions about limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in neonatal care has consequences for how possible courses of action are presented.

METHOD

Formal conversations (n = 27) between doctors and parents of critically ill babies from two level 3 neonatal intensive care units were audio or video recorded. Sequences of talk where decisions about limiting LST were presented were analysed using Conversation Analysis and coded using a Conversation Analytic informed coding framework. Relationships between codes were analysed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

When parents initiated the decision point, doctors subsequently tended to refer to or list available options. When doctors initiated, they tended to use 'recommendations' or 'single-option' choice (conditional) formats (p=0.017) that did not include multiple treatment options. Parent initiations overwhelmingly concerned withdrawal, as opposed to withholding of LST (p=0.030).

CONCLUSION

Aligning parents to the trajectory of the news about their baby's poor condition may influence how the doctor subsequently presents the decision to limit LST, and thereby the extent to which parents are invited to participate in shared decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Explicitly proposing treatment options may provide parents with opportunities to be involved in decisions for their critically ill babies, thereby fostering shared decision-making.

How do health and social care professionals in England and Wales assess mental capacity? A literature review

Purpose: To review evidence describing how health and social care professionals in England and Wales assess mental capacity, in order to identify ways to improve practice.Methods: A systematised literature review was completed. Electronic databases of published medical, health and social care research and gray literature were searched. Journal articles and research reports published between 2007 and 2018 were included if they met predefined eligibility criteria. Evidence from included studies was synthesized using thematic analysis.Results: 20 studies of variable methodological quality were included. The studies described assessments carried out by a range of multidisciplinary professionals working with different groups of service users in diverse care contexts. Four main themes were identified: preparation for assessment; capacity assessment processes; supported decision-making; interventions to facilitate or improve practice. There was a lack of detailed information describing how professionals provided information to service users and tested their decision-making abilities. Practice reported in studies varied in terms of its conformity to legal requirements.Conclusions: This review synthesized evidence about mental capacity assessment methods and quality in England and Wales and analyzed it to suggest ways in which practice might be improved.Implications for rehabilitationMental capacity assessment practice in England and Wales varies and is not always consistent with legal requirements, risking inconsistent and inaccurate judgements about capacity and exposure to legal action.Interventions have been developed to help professionals to engage in supported decision-making, and improve their mental capacity assessments and documentation in line with legal standards.These interventions include training and practical resources, such as assessment flowcharts, checklists and documentation aids. Such interventions would benefit from robust evaluation before they are implemented more widely.

A staff training intervention to improve communication between people living with dementia and health-care professionals in hospital: the VOICE mixed-methods development and evaluation study

Background

Twenty-five per cent of hospital beds are occupied by a person living with dementia. Dementia affects expressive communication and understanding. Health-care professionals report a lack of communication skills training.

Objectives

To identify teachable, effective strategies for communication between health-care professionals and people living with dementia, and to develop and evaluate a communication skills training course.

Design

We undertook a systematic literature review, video-recorded 41 encounters between staff and people with dementia, and used conversation analysis to investigate communication problems and solutions. We designed a communication skills training course using coproduction and multiple pedagogic approaches. We ran a pilot, followed by six courses for health-care professionals. We measured knowledge, confidence and communication behaviours before, immediately after and 1 month after the course, and undertook interviews with participants and managers. Behaviours were measured using blind-rated videos of simulations.

Setting

General hospital acute geriatric medical wards and two hospital clinical skills centres.

Participants

We video-recorded 26 people with dementia and 26 professionals. Ten experts in dementia care, education, simulation and communication contributed to intervention development. Six health-care professionals took part in a pilot course, and 45 took part in the training.

Results

The literature review identified 26 studies describing 10 communication strategies, with modest evidence of effectiveness. Health-care professional-initiated encounters followed a predictable phase structure. Problems were apparent in requests (with frequent refusals) and in closings. Success was more likely when requests were made directly, with high entitlement (authority to ask) and with lowered contingencies (made to sound less difficult, by minimising the extent or duration of the task, asking patients ‘to try’, offering help or proposing collaborative action). Closings were more successful if the health-care professional announced the end of the task, made a specific arrangement, body language matched talk, and through use of ‘closing idioms’. The training course comprised 2 days, 1 month apart, using experiential learning, including lectures, video workshops, small group discussions, simulations (with specially trained actors) and reflections. We emphasised the incorporation of previous expertise and commitment to person-centred care. Forty-four participants returned for the second training day and 43 provided complete evaluation data. Knowledge and confidence both increased. Some behaviours, especially relating to closings, were more commonly used after training. The course was rated highly in interviews, especially the use of simulations, real-life video clips and interdisciplinary learning. Participants reported that they found the methods useful in practice and were using them 1 month after the course finished.

Limitations

Data were from people with moderate to severe dementia, in an acute hospital, during health-care professional-initiated interactions. Analysis was limited to problems and solutions that were likely to be ‘trainable’. Actors required careful preparation to simulate people with dementia. Communication skills training course participants were volunteers, unlikely to be representative of the general workforce, who displayed high levels of baseline knowledge, confidence and skills. Before-and-after evaluations, and qualitative interviews, are prone to bias.

Conclusions

Requests and closings pose particular difficulties for professionals communicating with people with dementia. We identified solutions to these problems and incorporated them into communication skills training, which improved knowledge, confidence and some communication behaviours. Simulation was an effective training modality.

Future work

Further research should investigate a wider range of health, social care and family carers. Conversation analysis should be used to investigate other aspects of health-care communication.

Study registration

The systematic literature review is registered as CRD42015023437.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Deferring the Decision Point: Treatment Assertions in Neurology Outpatient Consultations

Recommendations can be implied by asserting some generalisation about a treatment's benefit without overtly directing the patient to take it. Focusing on a collection of assertions in UK neurology consultations, this paper shows that these are overwhelmingly receipted as "merely" doing informing and argues that this is made possible by their ambiguous design: their relatively depersonalised formats convey that the neurologist is simply telling the patient what's available, but the link made between the treatment and the patient's condition implies that it will be of benefit. Thus, assertions, while stopping short of telling the patient what to do, are hearable as recommendation relevant. This delicates balance leaves it up to the patient to respond either to the implied or on-record action (recommending vs. informing). When treated as "merely" doing informing, assertions defer the decision point until the neurologist has done something more. Three main interactional functions of this are identified as follows: (i) indicating the existence of a solution to a concern, without making a decision relevant next; (ii) orienting to the patient's right to choose; and (iii) making "cautious" recommendations.

Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

Background

We report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.

Objectives

To (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.

Design

A mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.

Setting and participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.

Limitations

A main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.

Conclusions

Patient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.

Future research

To advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Communicating Uncertain News in Cancer Consultations

In cancer communication, most of the literature is in the realm of delivering bad news while much less attention has been given to the communication of uncertain news around the diagnosis and the possible outcomes of the illness. Drawing on video-recorded cancer consultations collected in two Italian hospitals, this article analyzes three communication practices used by oncologists to interactionally manage the uncertainty during the visit: alternating between uncertain bad news and certain good news, anticipating scenarios, and guessing test results. Both diagnostic and personal uncertainties are not hidden to the patient, yet they are reduced through these practices. Such communication practices are present in 32 % of the visits in the data set, indicating that the interactional management of uncertainty is a relevant phenomenon in oncological encounters. Further studies are needed to improve both its understanding and its teaching.

Managing risk and patient involvement in choosing treatment for cancer: an analysis of two communication practices

Drawing on conversation analyses of oncology consultations collected in Italy, the article examines the communication practices used to recommend treatments. We found that the oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation (TR) for high-risk patients in terms of a 'mandatory' choice and for low-risk patients as an 'optional' type of decision. In the first case the doctor presses to reach a decision during the visit while in the second case leaves the decision open-ended. Results show that high-risk patients have less time to decide, are pressured towards choosing an option, but have more opportunities for involvement in TR during the visit. Low-risk patients instead have more time and autonomy to make a choice, but they are also less involved in the decision-making in the visit time. Moreover, we document that TR is organised through sequential activities in which the oncologist informs the patient of alternative therapeutic options while at the same time building a case for the kind of treatment she/he believes to be best for the patient's health. We suggest that in this field risk plays a key role in decision-making which should be better understood with further studies and taken into account in the debate on shared decision-making and patient-centred communication.

Patient involvement and language barriers: Problems of agreement or understanding?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explicate efforts for realizing patient-centeredness (PCC) and involvement (SDM) in a difficult decision-making situation. It investigates what communicative strategies a physician used and the immediate, observable consequences for patient participation.

METHODS

From a corpus of videotaped hospital encounters, one case in which the physician and patient used Norwegian as lingua franca was selected for analysis using conversation analysis (CA). Secondary data were measures of PCC and SDM.

RESULTS

Though the physician did extensive interactional work to secure the patient's understanding and acceptance of a treatment recommendation, his persistent attempts did not succeed in generating the patient's participation. In ratings of PCC and SDM, this case scored well above average.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that this encounter displays some of the 'best actual practice' of PCC and SDM within the corpus, our analysis of the interaction shows why the strategies were insufficient in the context of a language barrier and possible disagreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When facing problems of understanding, agreement and participation in treatment decision-making, relatively good patient centered skills may not suffice. Knowledge about the interactional realization of key activities is needed for developing training targeted at overcoming such challenges.

Do patients want choice? An observational study of neurology consultations

OBJECTIVES

To determine how often patients are given choice in neurology outpatient consultations and whether choice is associated with greater patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Prospective study in outpatient clinics in two United Kingdom centres. Interactions between 14 neurologists and 223 patients were studied. Participating doctors and patients completed post-appointment questionnaires asking whether choice had been offered/perceived. Patients completed the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale 21 (MISS-21).

RESULTS

Choice was reported after most encounters (patients 71.8%, neurologists 67.9%). Patients and Neurologists failed to agree about whether choice was offered after 32% of consultations. Choice was not associated with increased patient satisfaction. In fact, satisfaction was greater when no choice had been offered (p=0.05). Satisfaction scores were also greater when doctors were more certain about the diagnosis and when symptoms were considered explained by a medical condition (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Choice featured in the majority of clinical interactions but clinicians and patients often disagreed whether this was the case. Choice was not associated with greater patient satisfaction.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians need to be very explicit if they want patients to know that they are being given choices. Choice is not necessarily valued by patients in all clinical interactions.