ArticleBMC primary care2022
Anatomy of diagnosis in a clinical encounter: how clinicians discuss uncertainty with patients.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding diagnostic conversations in clinical practice: A systematic review.Patient education and counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Migraine and Trauma-Informed Care: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Research.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Navigating Uncertainty in Clinical Practice: A Structured Approach.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- Assessing the Assessment-Developing and Deploying a Novel Tool for Evaluating Clinical Notes' Diagnostic Assessment Quality.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- How does work environment relate to diagnostic quality? A prospective, mixed methods study in primary care.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Developing a Framework and Electronic Tool for Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Review
- Communicating uncertainty in pathology reports: a descriptive study from a specialized cancer center.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.