Visit Linearity in Primary Care Visits for Patients with Chronic Pain on Long-term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and patients report frustration after primary care visits for chronic pain. The need to shift between multiple clinical topics to address competing demands during visits may contribute to this frustration. OBJECTIVE: This study creates a novel measure, "visit linearity," to assess visit organization and examines whether visits that require less shifting back and forth between topics are associated with better patient and physician visit experiences. It also explores whether visit linearity differs depending on the following: (1) whether or not pain is a major topic of the visit and (2) whether or not pain is the first topic raised. DESIGN: This study analyzed 41 video-recorded visits using inductive, qualitative analysis informed by conversation analysis. We used linear regression to evaluate associations between visit organization and post-visit measures of participant experience. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were established adult patients planning to discuss pain management during routine primary care. Physicians were internal or family medicine residents. MAIN MEASURES: Visit linearity, total topics, return topics, topic shifts, time per topic, visit duration, pain main topic, pain first topic, patient experience, and physician difficulty. KEY RESULTS: Visits had a mean of 8.1 total topics (standard deviation (SD)=3.46), 14.5 topic shifts (SD=6.28), and 1.9 topic shifts per topic (SD=0.62). Less linear visits (higher topic shifts to topic ratio) were associated with greater physician visit difficulty (ß=7.28, p<0.001) and worse patient experience (ß= -0.62, p=0.03). Visit linearity was not significantly impacted by pain as a major or first topic raised. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care visits for patients with chronic pain taking opioids, more linear visits were associated with better physician and patient experience. Frequent topic shifts may be disruptive. If confirmed in future research, this finding implies that reducing shifts between topics could help decrease mutual frustration related to discussions about pain.

Expanding the Scope of the Visit: Which Patient-Initiated Additional Concerns Receive Help?

This study examines patient-initiated additional concern presentations in general surgery visits to assess which factors contribute to them getting "helped." Concern presentations were analyzed for a variety of design features (e.g., social action (inquiry vs. informing), when patients initiate during a visit, how patients fit topic to previous talk or activity) and contextual factors (e.g., concern falls inside or outside surgeon's domain of expertise, chronic vs. acute concern-types, the history of the patient-physician relationship). This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining case-level conversation analysis and aggregate-level statistical analysis. Data are video recordings of office visits from 2013-2015, with a longitudinal focus of following the same patients across time. In total, 62 patients spanning 175 visits were analyzed. 377 patient-initiated additional concerns were found, and 188 received help. Several factors were found to increase the likelihood of patients' concerns getting helped such as designing the concern as an inquiry, raising the concern early in the visit, and mentioning the concern more than once. These findings can help guide patients on how to better design additional concerns presentations to receive help and can benefit physicians by identifying more subtle practices patients are already using to broach concerns to help reduce unnoticed or unhelped concerns.

Trust and shared decision-making among individuals with multiple myeloma: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer with complex treatment options. Trusting patient-clinician relationships are essential to promote effective shared decision-making that aligns best clinical practices with patient values and preferences. This study sought to shed light on the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. METHODS: Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with MM patients within 2 years of initial diagnosis or relapse for this qualitative study. Interviews were recorded and transcripts were coded thematically. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (1) externally validated trust describes patients' predisposition to trust or distrust clinicians based on factors outside of patient-clinician interactions; (2) internally validated trust describes how patients develop trust based on interactions with specific clinicians. Internally validated trust is driven primarily by clinician communication practices that demonstrate competence, responsiveness, listening, honesty, and empathy; and (3) trust in relation to shared decision-making describes how patients relate the feeling of trust, or lack thereof, to the process of shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Many factors contribute to the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. While some are outside of clinicians' control, others derive from clinician behaviors and interpersonal communication skills. These findings suggest the possibility that trust can be enhanced through communication training or shared decision-making tools that emphasize relational communication. Given the important role trust plays in shared decision-making, clinicians working with MM patients should prioritize establishing positive, trusting relationships.

Making the most of video recorded clinical encounters: Optimizing impact and productivity through interdisciplinary teamwork.

Patient-clinician interactions are central to technical and interpersonal processes of medical care. Video recordings of these interactions provide a rich source of data and a stable record that allows for repeated viewing and analysis. Collecting video recordings requires navigating ethical and feasibility constraints; further, realizing the potential of video requires specialized research skills. Interdisciplinary collaborations involving practitioners, medical educators, and social scientists are needed to provide the clinical perspectives, methodological expertise, and capacity needed to make collecting video worthwhile. Such collaboration ensures that research questions will be based on scholarship from the social sciences, resonate with practice, and produce results that fit educational needs. However, the literature lacks suggested practices for building and sustaining interdisciplinary research collaborations involving video data. In this paper, we provide concrete advice based on our experience collecting and analyzing a single set of video-recorded clinical encounters and non-video data, which have so far yielded nine distinct studies. We present the research process, timeline, and advice based on our experience with interdisciplinary collaboration. We found that integrating disciplines and traditions required patience, compromise, and mutual respect; learning from each other enhanced our enjoyment of the process, our productivity, and the clinical relevance of our research.

When and how do surgeons initiate noticings of additional concerns?

OBJECTIVE: Physicians are trained on how to best solicit additional concerns from patients. What has not yet been studied is when and how physicians initiate additional concerns. This analysis focuses on when and how general surgeons share their noticings of medical problems unrelated to the upcoming (or recent) procedures that patients are being seen for. METHODS: 281 video-recorded medical encounters with 95 patients from a rural Texas (USA) general surgery private practice were reviewed for surgeon noticings of additional concerns. In addition to analyzing the videos using Conversation Analysis, the author conducted 9 months of ethnographic research to gain understanding of the local setting. RESULTS: 22 cases of surgeon noticings were found in 17 visits and were typically detected during the physical examination. Surgeons shared noticings adjacent to their discovery and predominantly framed noticings as bad news tellings. This framing helped mitigate 4 dilemmas surgeons encountered: unknown patient awareness of concern, surgeons' rights to assess areas unrelated to upcoming (or recent) procedures, not meeting the desired health optimization outcome & putting additional burden on patients, and other contextual factors specific to the visit that make sharing a noticing difficult. In addition to alerting patients and potentially activating earlier treatment, sharing noticings can also function to help build physician-patient relationships across time and curtail future patient worry. IMPLICATIONS: Each surgeon noticing is potentially a concern that may have otherwise remained undetected and untreated, and speaks to the importance of physicians taking time to conduct thorough physical examinations.

Patient-initiated additional concerns in general surgery visits.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how and when patients initiate additional concerns in general surgery visits. METHODS: 175 video-recorded visits of a general surgery practice in rural Texas were collected, coded, and analyzed using Conversation analysis. RESULTS: Patients initiated 377 additional concerns, with 2 or more concerns raised in 80 visits, and 1 concern raised in 37 visits. Three methods of initiation were identified: fitted-to-topic (66%), fitted-to-activity (14%), and disjunctive (20%). Sixty percent of patient-initiated concerns occurred i) before the physical examination, compared to 14% after the physical exam, and ii) in pre-operative visits. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the research on acute, primary care visits, patients in general surgery visits do not wait to present "door knob concerns." Instead, patients in general surgery visits are more likely to initiate concerns early in the visit. Patients most frequently find and create opportunities to introduce new concerns by fitting them to the ongoing talk or activity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians should spend more time on the physical exam, as this phase creates a unique opportunity for patients to initiate concerns.