Discriminatory and valuing communication behaviors in cardiology encounters.

OBJECTIVE: Many have found racial differences in clinician-patient communication using validated codebooks that represent effective communication. No codebooks used for examining racial differences, however, have included patient input. In this paper, we describe creating codebook with Black patient advocates to determine if we could reliably code discriminatory/valuing communication and assess racial differences in these behaviors. METHODS: We created a codebook for discriminatory/valuing communication behaviors with the input of Black patient advocates. We used the codebook to analyze data from 101 audio recorded encounters between White cardiologists and Black and White patients. We examined the differences in the prevalence of behaviors in cardiology encounters. RESULTS: In comparison to White patients, cardiologists made fewer tailoring statements to their Black patients (68% vs. 49%, p = 0.07). Coders found 4 instances of stereotyping behaviors and only Black patients (p = 0.12). We found no significant associations between any of the other outcomes and patient race. Black patients had a lower incidence of tailoring statements (p = 0.13), lower incidence of interrupting statements (p = 0.16), and higher rushed global score (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We found that coders can reliably identify discriminatory/valuing behaviors in cardiology encounters. Future work should apply these codes to other datasets to assess their validity and generalizability.

Patient and Caregiver Expression of Reluctance and Ambivalence During Palliative Care Encounters.

Context: Patients with serious illness and their caregivers often face challenging decisions. When faced with these decisions, patients and caregivers may display signs of ambivalence and reluctance toward end-of-life decision making. Methods: We recruited 22 palliative care clinicians to participate in a communication coaching study. Clinicians audio recorded four of their palliative care encounters with adult patients and family caregivers. A team of 5 coders used inductive coding methods to create a codebook and then coded instances of patients and caregivers expressing ambivalence and reluctance. They also coded when the decision-making process was initiated and whether a decision was made. The group coded 76 encounters, and 10% (n = 8) of those encounters were double coded to assess inter-rater reliability. Results: We found that ambivalence occurred in 82% (n = 62) of the encounters, while reluctance occurred in 75% (n = 57) of the encounters. The overall prevalence of either was 89% (n = 67). The presence of ambivalence was negatively associated with a decision being made once initiated (r = -0.29, p = 0.06). Conclusion: We found that coders can reliably identify patient and caregiver reluctance and ambivalence. Further, reluctance and ambivalence occur frequently in palliative care encounters. When patients and caregivers have ambivalence, decision making might be hampered.