Babel babble: physicians' use of unclarified medical jargon with patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe physicians use of jargon with diabetes patients with limited health literacy. METHODS: We audiotaped 74 outpatient encounters and coded unclarified jargon, assigning each term a clinical function. We administered telephone questionnaires to determine if comprehension of diabetes-related jargon varied with context. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of encounters contained at least one unclarified jargon term (mean of 4/visit). Thirty-seven percent of jargon use occurred when making recommendations, and 29% when providing health education. Patient comprehension rates were generally low and never reached adequate thresholds. CONCLUSION: Physicians caring for patients with limited health literacy employ unclarified jargon during key clinical functions.

Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care.

PURPOSE: Communication has been researched either as a set of behaviors or as a facet of the patient-physician relationship, often leading to conflicting results. To determine the relationship between these perspectives, we examined shared decision making (SDM) and the subjective experience of partnership for patients and physicians in primary care. METHODS: From a convenience sample of experienced primary care physicians in 3 clinics, we recruited a stratified sample of 18 English- or Spanish-speaking patients. Direct observation of visits was followed by videotape-triggered stimulated recall sessions with patients and physicians. We coded decision moments for objective evidence of SDM, using a structured instrument. We classified patients' and physicians' subjective experience of partnership as positive or negative by a consensus analysis of stimulated recall sessions. We combined results from these 2 analyses to generate 4 archetypes of engagements and used grounded theory to identify themes associated with each archetype. RESULTS: The 18 visits yielded 125 decisions, 62 (50%) of which demonstrated SDM. Eighty-two decisions were discussed in stimulated recall and available for combined analysis, resulting in 4 archetypes of engagement in decision making: full engagement (SDM present, subjective experience positive)--22%; simulated engagement (SDM present, subjective experience negative)--38%; assumed engagement (SDM absent, subjective experience positive)--21%; and nonengagement (SDM absent, subjective experience negative)--19%. Thematic analysis revealed that both relationship factors (eg, trust, power) and communication behavior influenced subjective experience of partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Combining direct observation and assessment of the subjective experience of partnership suggests that communication behavior does not ensure an experience of collaboration, and a positive subjective experience of partnership does not reflect full communication. Attempts to enhance patient-physician partnership must attend to both effective communication style and affective relationship dynamics.

Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic disease have limited health literacy (HL). Because physicians have difficulty identifying these patients, some experts recommend instituting screening programs in clinical settings. It is unclear if notifying physicians of patients' limited HL improves care processes or outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether notifying physicians of their patients' limited HL affects physician behavior, physician satisfaction, or patient self-efficacy. DESIGN: We screened all patients for limited HL and randomized physicians to be notified if their patients had limited HL skills. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three primary care physicians affiliated with a public hospital and 182 diabetic patients with limited HL. MEASUREMENTS: After their visit, physicians reported their management strategies, satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and attitudes toward HL screening. We also assessed patients' self-efficacy, feelings regarding HL screening's usefulness, and glycemic control. RESULTS: Intervention physicians were more likely than control physicians to use management strategies recommended for patients with limited HL (OR 3.2, P=.04). However, intervention physicians felt less satisfied with their visits (81% vs 93%, P=.01) and marginally less effective (38% vs 53%, P=.10). Intervention and control patients' post-visit self-efficacy scores were similar (12.6 vs 12.9, P=.6). Sixty-four percent of intervention physicians and 96% of patients felt HL screening was useful. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are responsive to receiving notification of their patients' limited HL, and patients support the potential utility of HL screening. However, instituting screening programs without specific training and/or system-wide support for physicians and patients is unlikely to be a powerful tool in improving diabetes outcomes.

Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy.

BACKGROUND: Patients recall or comprehend as little as half of what physicians convey during an outpatient encounter. To enhance recall, comprehension, and adherence, it is recommended that physicians elicit patients' comprehension of new concepts and tailor subsequent information, particularly for patients with low functional health literacy. It is not known how frequently physicians apply this interactive educational strategy, or whether it is associated with improved health outcomes. METHODS: We used direct observation to measure the extent to which primary care physicians working in a public hospital assess patient recall and comprehension of new concepts during outpatient encounters, using audiotapes of visits between 38 physicians and 74 English-speaking patients with diabetes mellitus and low functional health literacy. We then examined whether there was an association between physicians' application of this interactive communication strategy and patients' glycemic control using information from clinical and administrative databases. RESULTS: Physicians assessed recall and comprehension of any new concept in 12 (20%) of 61 visits and for 15 (12%) of 124 new concepts. Patients whose physicians assessed recall or comprehension were more likely to have hemoglobin A(1c) levels below the mean (< or = 8.6%) vs patients whose physicians did not (odds ratio, 8.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-74.9) (P =.02). After multivariate logistic regression, the 2 variables independently associated with good glycemic control were higher health literacy levels (odds ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-14.47) (P =.04) and physicians' application of the interactive communication strategy (odds ratio, 15.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-110.78) (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians caring for patients with diabetes mellitus and low functional health literacy rarely assessed patient recall or comprehension of new concepts. Overlooking this step in communication reflects a missed opportunity that may have important clinical implications.