Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715733›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Anatomy of diagnosis in a clinical encounter: how clinicians discuss uncertainty with patients.

Maram Khazen, Erin E Sullivan, Jason Ramos, Maria Mirica, Mark Linzer, Gordon D Schiff, Andrew P J Olson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Identifying Facilitators and Inhibitors of Shared Understanding: An Ethnography of Diagnosis Communication in Acute Medical Settings.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maram KhazenHarvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. maramkh@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3165-3496
Erin E SullivanSawyer School of Business, Suffolk University, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9118-7936
Jason RamosEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA.
Maria MiricaBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Mark LinzerDepartment of Medicine at Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Gordon D SchiffDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Andrew P J OlsonUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies 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.

methodsThis 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsDiagnosis 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.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysiciansFemaleHumansTape RecordingUncertaintyClinical reasoningDiagnostic uncertaintyDiagnostic utterancesPrimary careQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID35715733
PMCPMC9205543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.