Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 186, Issue 1, pp 235–238 | Cite as

Who accompanies patients to the chronic pain clinic?

Original Article



Patients may be accompanied to the pain clinic consultation and these accompanying persons are relevant in the communication process.


We sought to characterize if patients were accompanied and by whom to the pain clinic. We also wished to determine the accompanying persons influence on the doctor–patient interaction. This has not been studied previously in this clinical setting.


Local ethics committee approval followed by written informed consent was obtained. Patients attending the pain clinic for the first time and review patients were included (n = 219).


Twenty-one percent of patients (n = 46) were accompanied. Adult accompanied by spouse 19 (41.3 %) and adult child accompanied by parent 18 (39.1 %) were the most common dyads. The accompanying person’s role was most frequently described by doctors as an advocate for the patient 30/46 (65.2 %) [for an adult accompanied by spouse (63.1 %)]. The influence of the main accompanying person on the patient doctor encounter was described as positive [adult accompanied by spouse (78.9 %)] [(adult accompanied by parent (94.4 %)].


Patients are accompanied to the pain clinic with a typically positive influence on doctor patient relationship and communication. Awareness of these issues is important in good communication in the pain clinic.


Pain clinic Accompanying persons Communication Doctor patient relationship 


  1. 1.
    Kirsch BM, Gozzi EK, Francis V (1968) Gaps in doctor–patient communication. I. Doctor–patient interaction and patient satisfaction. Pediatrics 42(5):855–871Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arborelius E, Bremberg S (1992) What can doctors do to achieve a successful consultation? Videotaped interviews analyzed by the ‘consultation map’ method. Fam Pract 9(1):61–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Headache Study Group of The University of Western Ontario (1986) Predictors of outcomes in headache patients presenting to family physicians—a one year prospective study. Headache 26(6):285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henbest RJ, Stewart M (1990) Patient-centredness in the consultation. Does it really make a difference? Fam Pract 7(1):28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orth JE, Stiles WB, Scherwitz L, Hennrikus D, Vallbona C (1987) Patient exposition and provider explanation in routine interviews and hypertensive patients’ blood pressure control. Health Psychol 6(1):29–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDaniel S, Campbell TL, Sea burn DB (1990) Family-oriented primary care. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kilpatrick AC, Holland TP (1995) Working with families: an integrative model by level of functioning. Alyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE Jr, Yano EM, Frank HJ (1988) Patients’ participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 3(5):448–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr (1989) Assessing the effects of physician–patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care 27(3 Suppl):S110–S127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer DL, Schneid JA, Craigie FC Jr (1989) Family conferences: reasons, levels of involvement and perceived usefulness. J Fam Pract 29(4):401–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furst A, Knishkowy B (1991) Adults who accompany their children to the family physician in Israel: parents and patients. Isr J Med Sci 27(4):224–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labrecque MS, Blanchard CG, Ruckdeschel JC, Blanchard EB (1991) The impact of family presence on the physician–cancer patient interaction. Soc Sci Med 33:1253–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Street RL (1992) Communicative styles and adaptations in physician–parent consultations. Soc Sci Med 34(10):1155–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kenny DT (2004) Constructions of chronic pain in doctor–patient relationships: bridging the communication chasm. Patient Educ Couns 52(3):297–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greene MG, Majerovitz SD, Adelman RD, Rizzo C (1994) The effects of the presence of a third person on the physician–older patient medical interview. J Am Geriatr Soc 42(4):413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown JB, Brett P, Stewart M, Marshall JN (1998) Roles and influence of people who accompany patients on visits to the doctor. Can Fam Physician 44:1644–1650PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hulley SB, Cummings SR (1998) Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knishkowy B, Furst A, Fassberg Y, Anor E, Matthews S, Paz Y (1991) Multiple family member visits to family physicians. Terminology, classification, and implications. J Fam Pract 32(1):57–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishikawa H, Roter DL, Yamazaki Y, Takayama T (2005) Physician–elderly patient–companion communication and roles of companions in Japanese geriatric encounters. Soc Sci Med 60(10):2307–2320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesia and Pain MedicineLimerick University HospitalLimerickIreland
  2. 2.SCU/CSTAR @ ULUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations