Communicative Practices Clinicians Use to Correct Patient Misconceptions in Primary Care Visits.

To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.

Making Conversation Analysis Accessible: A Conceptual Guide for Health Services Researchers.

The quality of healthcare communication can impact both experiences and outcomes. We highlight aspects of communication that can be systematically examined using Conversation Analysis (CA) and provide guidance about how researchers can incorporate CA into healthcare studies. CA is a qualitative method for studying naturally occurring communication by analyzing recurrent, systematic practices of verbal and nonverbal behavior. CA involves examining audio- or video-recorded conversations and their transcriptions to identify practices speakers use to communicate and interpret behavior. We explain what distinguishes CA from other methods that study communication and highlight three accessible CA approaches that researchers can use in their research design, analysis, or implementation of communication interventions. Specifically, these approaches focus on how talk is produced (specific words, framing, and syntax), by whom, and when it occurs in the conversation. These approaches can be leveraged to generate hypotheses and to identify patterns of behavior that inform empirically driven communication interventions.

Agenda setting and visit openings in primary care visits involving patients taking opioids for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Agenda setting is associated with more efficient care and better patient experience. This study develops a taxonomy of visit opening styles to assess use of agenda and non-agenda setting visit openings and their effects on participant experience. METHODS: This observational study analyzed 83 video recorded US primary care visits at a single academic medical center in California involving family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (n = 49) and patients (n = 83) with chronic pain on opioids. Using conversation analysis, we developed a coding scheme that assessed the presence of agenda setting, distinct visit opening styles, and the number of total topics, major topics, surprise patient topics, and returns to prior topics discussed. Exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of agenda setting and visit opening styles with post-visit measures of both patient experience and physician perception of visit difficulty. RESULTS: We identified 2 visit opening styles representing agenda setting (agenda eliciting, agenda reframing) and 3 non-agenda setting opening styles (open-ended question, patient launch, physician launch). Agenda setting was only performed in 11% of visits and was associated with fewer surprise patient topics than visits without agenda setting (mean (SD) 2.67 (1.66) versus 4.28 (3.23), p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic pain, resident physicians rarely performed agenda setting, whether defined in terms of "agenda eliciting" or "agenda re-framing." Agenda setting was associated with fewer surprise topics. Understanding the communication context and outcomes of agenda setting may inform better use of this communication tool in primary care  practice.

"It Sometimes Doesn't Even Work": Patient Opioid Assessments as Clues to Therapeutic Flexibility in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments DESIGN: This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY RESULTS: Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.