Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 677–682 | Cite as

Effects of exam-room computing on clinician-patient communication

A longitudinal qualitative study
  • Richard Frankel
  • Andrea Altschuler
  • Sheba George
  • James Kinsman
  • Holly Jimison
  • Nan R. Robertson
  • John Hsu
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of exam-room computers on communication between clinicians and patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS: Longitudinal, qualitative study using video-tapes of regularly scheduled visits from 3 points in time: 1 month before, 1 month after, and 7 months after introduction of computers into the exam room.

SETTING: Primary care medical clinic in a large integrated delivery system.

PARTICIPANTS: Nine clinicians (6 physicians, 2 physician assistants, and 1 nurse practitioner) and 54 patients.

RESULTS: The introduction of computers into the exam room affected the visual, verbal, and postural connection between clinicians and patients. There were variations across the visits in the magnitude and direction of the computer’s effect. We identified 4 domains in which exam-room computing affected clinician-patient communication: visit organization, verbal and nonverbal behavior, computer navigation and mastery, and spatial organization of the exam room. We observed a range of facilitating and inhibiting effects on clinician-patient communication in all 4 domains. For 2 domains, visit organization and verbal and nonverbal behavior, facilitating and inhibiting behaviors observed prior to the introduction of the computer appeared to be amplified when exam-room computing occurred. Likewise, exam-room computing involving navigation and mastery skills and spatial organization of the exam-room created communication challenges and opportunities. In all 4 domains, there was little change observed in exam-room computing behaviors from the point of introduction to 7-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Effective use of computers in the outpatient exam room may be dependent upon clinicians’ baseline skills that are carried forward and are amplified, positively or negatively, in their effects on clinician-patient communication. Computer use behaviors do not appear to change much over the first 7 months. Administrators and educators interested in improving exam-room computer use by clinicians need to better understand clinician skills and previous work habits associated with electronic medical records. More study of the effects of new technologies on the clinical relationship is also needed.

Key words

communication electronic medical records integrated delivery system exam-room computers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Powell J. NHS national programme for information technology: changes must involve clinicians and show the value to patient care. BMJ. 2004;328:1200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bush G.W. Executive Order: Incentives for the Use of Health Information Technology and Establishing the Position of the National Health Information Technology Coordinator. 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review [see comment]. JAMA. 1998;280:1339–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engel G. How Much Longer Must Medicine’s Science be Bounded by a Seventeenth Century World View? The Task of Medicine, Dialogue at Wickenburg. Menlo Park: The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation; 1988:113–36.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physicianpatient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Selby JV, Quesenberry CP Jr. Effect of physician and patient gender concordance on patient satisfaction and preventive care practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:761–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, Rogers W, Ware JE. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style. Results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care. 1995;33:1176–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo JJ, Gonzales JJ, et al. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 1999;282:583–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284:1021–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suchman AL, Matthews DA. What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:125–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, Galajda J, Meredith L, Sangster M. Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control. 1999;3:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glass RM. The patient-physician relationship. JAMA focuses on the center of medicine. JAMA. 1996;275:147–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inui TS, Carter WB. Problems and prospects for health services research on provider-patient communication. Med Care. 1985;23:521–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frankel RM, Stein T, Krupat E. The Four Habits Approach to Effective Clinical Communication. Oakland, CA: Kaiser Permanente; 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In Smith JA, R. Harré, Van Langenhove L, eds. Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage; 1995, 27–49.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devers KJ. How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5, Part 2):1153–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheflen A. Communicational Structure: Analysis of a Psychotherapy Transaction. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press; 1971.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen-Cole S.A. The Medical Interview: The Three Function Approach. St. Louis: Mosby-Yearbook; 1991:21–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frankel RM, Quill T. The Biopsychosocial Approach: Past, Present, Future. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keller VF, Carroll JG. A new model for physician-patient communication. Patient Educ Couns. 1994;23:131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tresolini CPF. Health professions education and relationship-centered care. Report of the Pew-Fetzer task force on advancing psychosocial health education; 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stewart MB, Jb. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. Thousands Oak, Calif: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wasserman RC, Inui TS, Barriatua RD, Carter WB, Lippincott P. Pediatric clinicians’ support for parents makes a difference: an outcome-based analysis of clinician-parent interaction. Pediatrics. 1984;74:1047–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lester GW, Smith SG. Listening and talking to patients? A remedy for malpractice suits. West J Med. 1993;158:268–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DiMatteo MR, Taranta A, Friedman HS, Prince LM. Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians’ nonverbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18:376–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    unknown. Eye contact and patient satisfaction, unknown; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Milmoe S, Rosenthal R, Blane HT, Chafetz ME, Wolf I. The doctor’s voice: postdictor of successful referral of alcoholic patients. J Abnorm Psychol. 1967;72:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Frankel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Altschuler
    • 3
  • Sheba George
    • 4
    • 5
  • James Kinsman
    • 3
  • Holly Jimison
    • 6
  • Nan R. Robertson
    • 7
  • John Hsu
    • 3
  1. 1.Center on Implementing Evidence-based Practice, Roudebush, VAMCUSA
  2. 2.Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Kaiser Permanente Medical Care ProgramDivision of ResearchOaklandUSA
  4. 4.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Charles R. Drew University of Science and MedicineUSA
  6. 6.Oregon Health and Sciences UniversityUSA
  7. 7.The Robertson GroupPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations