Race differences in patient trust and distrust from audio-recorded cardiology encounters.

OBJECTIVE: Many have reported racial disparities in self-reported trust in clinicians but have not directly assessed expressions of trust and distrust in physician-patient encounters. We created a codebook to examine racial differences in patient trust and distrust through audio-recorded cardiologist-patient interactions. METHODS: We analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial of audio-recorded outpatient cardiology encounters (50 White and 51 Black patients). We created a codebook for trust and distrust that was applied to recordings between White cardiologists and White and Black patients. We assessed differences in trust, distrust, and guardedness while adjusting for patient age, sex, and first appointment with the cardiologist. RESULTS: Compared to White patients, Black patients had significantly lower expressions of trust ([IRR] [95 % CI]: 0.59 [0.41, 0.84]) and a significantly lower mean guarded/open score ([ß] [95 % CI] -0.38 [-0.71, -0.04]). There was no statistically significant association between race and odds of at least one distrustful expression (OR [95 % CI] 1.36 [0.37, 4.94]). CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We found that coders can reliably identify patient expressions of trust and distrust rather than relying on problematic self-reported measures. Results suggest that White clinicians can improve their communication with Black patients to increase expressions of trust.

A qualitative analysis of trust and distrust within patient-clinician interactions.

Objectives: Trust represents a key quality of strong clinician-patient relationships.1 Many have attempted to assess patient-reported trust. However, most trust measures suffer from ceiling effects, with no variability, making it not possible to examine predictors of trust and distrust. Rather than rely on patient reports, we created a codebook for instances of trust and distrust from actual patient-clinician encounters. Methods: Three coders conducted a qualitative analysis of audio recordings among patient-cardiologist outpatient encounters. Results: We identified trust and distrust based on vocal and verbal cues in the interactions. We found consistent patterns that indicated patient trust and distrust. Conclusion: Overall, this work empirically validates a new more accurate measurement of trust for patient-doctor interactions. Innovation: We are the first to use audio recordings to identify verbal markers of trust and distrust in patient-clinician interactions. From this work, others can code trust and distrust in recorded encounters rather than rely on self-report measures.

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.