Effectiveness of intensive physician training in upfront agenda setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients want all their concerns heard, but physicians fear losing control of time and interrupt patients before all concerns are raised. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that when physicians were trained to use collaborative upfront agenda setting, visits would be no longer, more concerns would be identified, fewer concerns would surface late in the visit, and patients would report greater satisfaction and improved functional status. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Post-only randomized controlled trial using qualitative and quantitative methods. Six months after training (March 2004-March 2005) physician-patient encounters in two large primary care organizations were audio taped and patients (1460) and physicians (48) were surveyed. INTERVENTION: Experimental physicians received training in upfront agenda setting through the Establishing Focus Protocol, including two hours of training and two hours of coaching per week for four consecutive weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included agenda setting behaviors demonstrated during the early, middle, and late encounter phases, visit length, number of raised concerns, patient and physician satisfaction, trust and functional status. KEY RESULTS: Experimental physicians were more likely to make additional elicitations (p < 0.01) and their patients were more likely to indicate agenda completion in the early phase of the encounter (p < 0.01). Experimental group patients and physicians raised fewer concerns in the late encounter phase (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in visit length, total concerns addressed, patient or provider satisfaction, or patient trust and functional status CONCLUSION: Collaborative upfront agenda setting did not increase visit length or the number of problems addressed per visit but may reduce the likelihood of "oh by the way" concerns surfacing late in the encounter. However, upfront agenda setting is not sufficient to enhance patient satisfaction, trust or functional status. Training focused on physicians instead of teams and without regular reinforcement may have limited impact in changing visit content and time use.

Identifying transparency in physician communication.

OBJECTIVE: To categorize physician communication demonstrating understanding of what patients want to know and skill in conveying that information. Physicians underestimate how much information patients want and patients rarely seek information during clinic visits. Transparent communication is advocated to facilitate patient understanding and support autonomy, informed decision-making and relationship development. METHODS: Analysis and coding of 263 audiotaped interactions between 33 primary care physicians and their patients in eight community-based, primary care clinics in Washington State, USA. RESULTS: Physicians proactively used five types of process transparency to preview speech and actions. Four types of content transparency were used to explicate diagnosis and treatment, demystify medical language and concepts, and interpret biomedical information. Physicians spent the greatest proportion of clinic time explicating medical content. CONCLUSION: The primacy of information exchange over process-oriented, relational communication was demonstrated. Proactive transparency appears promising to increase understanding and collaboration. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In patient-centered care where collaboration is the ideal, transparency in its various forms is a critical ingredient. Without much communicative effort, physicians who proactively communicated that an examination was over, that they were leaving the exam room briefly so patients could dress provided information that appeared to address patient uncertainty and demonstrated empathy and respect.