Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters
- 23k Downloads
Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient’s agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient’s discourse.
We aimed to describe the extent to which patients’ concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation.
Design and Participants
We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools.
Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools.
Clinicians elicited the patient’s agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient’s agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7–22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3–19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern.
Clinicians seldom elicit the patient’s agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient’s agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient’s agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.
KEY WORDSagenda setting patient-centered care patient-physician communication
The authors would like to acknowledge Jonathan Inselman’s assistance in identifying eligible video encounters for this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.Cole SA, Bird J. The Medical Interview : The Three Function Approach. Third edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013.Google Scholar
- 2.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 10.Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan JM, Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 25.Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1560–8.Google Scholar
- 26.Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller A, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009:12:38–44.Google Scholar
- 29.Kreft IGG, de Leeuw J. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1998.Google Scholar
- 35.Montori VM. Why We Revolt. A Patient Revolution for Careful and Kind Care. Rochester, NY: The Patient Revolution; 2017.Google Scholar