How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred. METHODS: Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. METHODS: Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2-4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross-examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow-up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. CONCLUSIONS: In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow-up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets.

Creating and administering video vignettes for a study examining the communication of diagnostic uncertainty: methodological insights to improve accessibility for researchers and participants.

BACKGROUND: Studying clinician-patient communication can be challenging, particularly when research seeks to explore cause-and-effect relationships. Video vignettes - hypothetical yet realistic scenarios - offer advantages to traditional observational approaches by enabling standardisation and manipulation of a clinician-patient encounter for assessment by participants. While published guidelines outline stages to create valid video vignette studies, constructing high quality vignettes which are accessible to a wide range of participants and feasible to produce within time and budget restraints remains challenging. Here, we outline our methods in creating valid video vignettes to study the communication of diagnostic uncertainty. We aim to provide practically useful recommendations for future researchers, and to prompt further reflection on accessibility issues in video vignette methodology. METHODS: We produced four video vignettes for use in an online study examining the communication of diagnostic uncertainty. We followed established guidelines for vignette production, with specific consideration of how these might be applied pragmatically to save time and resources. Scripts were pilot-tested with 15 laypeople, and videos with 14 laypeople; pilot-testing involved both quantitative and qualitative analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We demonstrate the usefulness of existing guidelines, while also determining that vignette production need not necessarily be expensive or time-consuming to be valid. Our vignettes were filmed using an iPhone camera, and featured a physician rather than a professional actor; nonetheless, pilot-testing found them to be internally and externally valid for experimental use. We thus propose that if care is taken in initial script development and if pragmatic choices are made regarding filming techniques and pilot-testing, researchers can produce valid vignettes within reasonable time and budget restraints. We also suggest that existing research fails to critically examine the potential benefits and harms of online video vignette methodology, and propose that further research should consider how it can be adapted to be inclusive of those from underserved backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers creating video vignette studies can adapt the video vignette development process to suit time and budget constraints, and to make best use of available technology. Online methods may be harnessed to increase participant accessibility, but future research should explore more inclusive vignette design.