Background Studies consider the clinical encounter as linear, comprising six phases (opening, problem presentation, history-taking, physical examination, diagnosis, treatment and closing). This study utilizes formal conversation analysis to explore patient-physician interactions and understanding diagnostic utterances during these phases. Methods This study is a qualitative sub-analysis that explores how the diagnosis process, along with diagnostic uncertainty, are addressed during 28 urgent care visits. We analyzed physicians’ hypothesis-generation process by focusing on: location of diagnostic utterances during the encounter; whether certain/uncertain diagnostic utterances were revised throughout the encounter; and how physicians tested their hypothesis-generation and managed uncertainty. We recruited 7 primary care physicians (PCPs) and their 28 patients from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in 3 urgent care settings. Encounters were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed inductively and deductively, using formal content and conversation analysis. Results We identified 62 diagnostic communication utterances in 12 different clinical situations. In most (24/28, 86%) encounters, the diagnosis process was initiated before the diagnosis phase (57% during history taking and 64% during physical examination). In 17 encounters (61%), a distinct diagnosis phase was not observed. Findings show that the diagnosis process is nonlinear in two ways. First, nonlinearity was observed when diagnostic utterances occurred throughout the encounter, with the six encounter phases overlapping, integrating elements of one phase with another. Second, nonlinearity was noted with respect to the resolution of diagnostic uncertainty, with physicians acknowledging uncertainty when explaining their diagnostic reasoning, even during brief encounters. Conclusions Diagnosis is often more interactive and nonlinear, and expressions of diagnostic assessments can occur at any point during an encounter, allowing more flexible and potentially more patient-centered communication. These findings are relevant for physicians’ training programs and helping clinicians improve their communication skills in managing uncertain diagnoses.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe quest to measure and improve diagnosis has proven challenging; new approaches are needed to better understand and measure key elements of the diagnostic process in clinical encounters. The aim of this study was to develop a tool assessing key elements of the diagnostic assessment process and apply it to a series of diagnostic encounters examining clinical notes and encounters’ recorded transcripts. Additionally, we aimed to correlate and contextualise these findings with measures of encounter time and physician burnout.DesignWe audio-recorded encounters, reviewed their transcripts and associated them with their clinical notes and findings were correlated with concurrent Mini Z Worklife measures and physician burnout.SettingThree primary urgent-care settings.ParticipantsWe conducted in-depth evaluations of 28 clinical encounters delivered by seven physicians.ResultsComparing encounter transcripts with clinical notes, in 24 of 28 (86%) there was high note/transcript concordance for the diagnostic elements on our tool. Reliably included elements were red flags (92% of notes/encounters), aetiologies (88%), likelihood/uncertainties (71%) and follow-up contingencies (71%), whereas psychosocial/contextual information (35%) and mentioning common pitfalls (7%) were often missing. In 22% of encounters, follow-up contingencies were in the note, but absent from the recorded encounter. There was a trend for higher burnout scores being associated with physicians less likely to address key diagnosis items, such as psychosocial history/context.ConclusionsA new tool shows promise as a means of assessing key elements of diagnostic quality in clinical encounters. Work conditions and physician reactions appear to correlate with diagnostic behaviours. Future research should continue to assess relationships between time pressure and diagnostic quality.

Objectives To understand the relationship between stressful work environments and patient care by assessing work conditions, burnout, and elements of the diagnostic process. Methods Notes and transcripts of audiotaped encounters were assessed for verbal and written documentation related to psychosocial data, differential diagnosis, acknowledgement of uncertainty, and other diagnosis-relevant contextual elements using 5-point Likert scales in seven primary care physicians (PCPs) and 28 patients in urgent care settings. Encounter time spent vs time needed (time pressure) was collected from time stamps and clinician surveys. Study physicians completed surveys on stress, burnout, and work conditions using the Mini-Z survey. Results Physicians with high stress or burnout were less likely to record psychosocial information in transcripts and notes (psychosocial information noted in 0% of encounters in 4 high stress/burned-out physicians), whereas low stress physicians (n=3) recorded psychosocial information consistently in 67% of encounters. Burned-out physicians discussed a differential diagnosis in only 31% of encounters (low counts concentrated in two physicians) vs. in 73% of non-burned-out doctors’ encounters. Burned-out and non-burned-out doctors spent comparable amounts of time with patients (about 25 min). Conclusions Key diagnostic elements were seen less often in encounter transcripts and notes in burned-out urgent care physicians.