A Cohort Study Assessing Difficult Patient Encounters in a Walk-In Primary Care Clinic, Predictors and Outcomes
- 753 Downloads
Previous studies have found that up to 15% of clinical encounters are experienced as difficult by clinicians.
Explore patient and physician characteristics associated with being considered “difficult” and assess the impact on patient outcomes.
Prospective cohort study.
Seven hundred fifty adults presenting to a primary care walk-in clinic with a physical symptom.
Pre-visit surveys assessed symptom characteristics, expectations, functional status (Medical Outcome Study SF-6) and the presence of mental disorders [Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders, (PRIME-MD)]. Post-visit surveys assessed satisfaction (Rand-9), unmet expectations and trust. Two-week assessment included symptom outcome (gone, better, same, worse), functional status and satisfaction. After each visit, clinicians rated encounter difficulty using the Difficult Doctor-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (DDPRQ). Clinicians also completed the Physician’s Belief Scale, a measure of psychosocial orientation.
Among the 750 subjects, 133 (17.8%) were perceived as difficult. “Difficult” patients were less likely to fully trust (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77–0.99) or be fully satisfied (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62–0.98) with their clinician, and were more likely to have worsening of symptoms at 2 weeks (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97). Patients involved in “difficult encounters” had more than five symptoms (RR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3), endorsed recent stress (RR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4–3.2) and had a depressive or anxiety disorder (RR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3–4.2). Physicians involved in difficult encounters were less experienced (12 years vs. 9 years, p = 0.0002) and had worse psychosocial orientation scores (77 vs. 67, p < 0.005).
Both patient and physician characteristics are associated with “difficult” encounters, and patients involved in such encounters have worse short-term outcomes.
KeywordsSymptom Outcome Structural Equation Modeling Model Poor Functional Status Somatization Disorder Unmet Expectation
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed, in any way, to represent those of the US Army, the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Conflict of Interest
- 2.Hahn SR KK, Spitzer RL, Brody D, Williams J, Linzer M, deGruy FV. "The difficult patient": prevalence, psychopathology, and functional impairment. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:1–8.Google Scholar
- 7.Krebs EE. GJ, Konrad TR. The difficult doctor? Characteristics of physicians who report frustration with patients: an analysis of survey data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(128):1–8.Google Scholar
- 10.Johnson JE JT, Pinholt EM, Carpenter JL. Content of ambulatory internal medicine practice in an academic army medical center and army community hospital. Military Med. 1988;153:21–25.Google Scholar
- 11.Jackson JL SJ, Cheng E, Meyer G. Patients diagnosis and procedures in a military internal medicine clinic; comparison with civilian. Military Med. 1999;164(3):194–97.Google Scholar
- 17.Hosmer DW LS. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
- 18.Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.Google Scholar
- 19.Browne MW CR. Alternative Ways for Assessing Model Fit in Testing Structural Equation Models. In: Bollen KA LJ, editor. Newbury Park Sage, 1993:136-62.Google Scholar
- 21.Carmines EG MJ. Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables in Social Measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
- 26.Drossman D. The problem patient: evaluation and care of medical patients with psychocosial disturbances. Annals Intern Med. 1978;88:366–72.Google Scholar
- 29.Smith R. Patient-Centered Interviewing: An Evidence Based Method. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2002.Google Scholar
- 31.Delbanco T. Enriching the doctor-patient relationship by inviting the patients perspective. Ann Intern Med. 1992:116-414.Google Scholar
- 33.Spitzer RL WJ, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, Hanh SR. Utility of a New Procedure for Diagnosing Mental Disorders in Primary Care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1994;272:1749-56.Google Scholar
- 34.Ware JE NE, Shelbourne CD, Stewart AL. Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey: a patient application in measuring functioning and well being. In the Medical Outcomes Study Approach Durham Duke University Press 1992.Google Scholar
- 35.Groves J. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978;80:1211–15.Google Scholar