Inductive foraging: patients taking the lead in diagnosis, a mixed-methods study

被引:2
作者
Michiels-Corsten, Matthias [1 ]
Weyand, Anna M. [1 ,2 ]
Gold, Judith [1 ]
Boesner, Stefan [1 ]
Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert [1 ]
机构
[1] Philipps Univ Marburg, Fac Med, Dept Gen Practice, Karl von Frisch Str 4, D-35043 Marburg, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Marburg UKGM, Dept Neurol, Marburg, Germany
关键词
clinical decision-making; diagnosis; medical history taking; physician-patient relations; primary health care; qualitative research; DECISION-MAKING; COMMUNICATION;
D O I
10.1093/fampra/cmab144
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Patient involvement in treatment decisions is widely accepted. Making a diagnosis, however, is still seen as a technical task mainly driven by physicians. Patients in this respect are perceived as passive providers of data. But, recent patient-centred concepts highlight the value of an active patient involvement in diagnosis. Objective We aim to reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. Methods This is an observational study of patient consultations with their General Practitioner (GP) in 12 German practices. We performed a mixed-method qualitative and quantitative analysis of 134 primary care consultations. Results At the beginning of most consultations lies a phase where patients were invited to freely unfold their reason for encounter: This was named "inductive foraging" (IF). While patients actively present their complaints, GPs mainly listen and follow the presentation. This episode was found with every GP participating in this study. Ninety-one percent of consultations with diagnostic episodes were opened by IF. IF had a major contribution to the number of cues (diagnostic information) yielded in the diagnostic process. We illustrate a variety of tactics GPs make use of to invite, support, and terminate their patients in IF. Conclusion IF was found to be a highly relevant strategy in the diagnostic process. Patient involvement through IF offered a major contribution of diagnostic cues. We hypothesize that a patient-centred approach improves diagnosis. Lay Summary Making a diagnosis is a central part in medicine. Before advising treatments, physicians need to understand patients' complaints and ideally the reason for their symptoms. Generating an accurate diagnosis is often attributed to clinicians asking many specific questions and performing an array of tests. The patients' task in turn is passively answering "yes" or "no," or donating blood. In this study, we shed a different light on the phenomenon of diagnosis. We observed and recorded 295 primary care consultations. After each consultation, GPs were asked to reflect on their diagnostic thinking during the encounter. At the beginning of consultations, we witnessed a phase where patients were invited to freely report their complains and unfold their reason for encounter. Here, physicians mainly listened to their patients and motivated for further elaboration. We termed this phase "inductive foraging." GPs received the majority of diagnostic information (cues) during this phase. We therefore belief that an active patient involvement may improve diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页码:479 / 485
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Work Stress in NHS Employees: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Ravalier, Jermaine M.
    McVicar, Andrew
    Boichat, Charlotte
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 17 (18) : 1 - 14
  • [22] Exploring the Boundaries of Deception in Simulation: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Calhoun, Aaron
    Pian-Smith, May
    Shah, Anjan
    Levine, Adam
    Gaba, David
    DeMaria, Samuel
    Goldberg, Andrew
    Meyer, Elaine C.
    CLINICAL SIMULATION IN NURSING, 2020, 40 : 7 - 16
  • [23] Delegation in School Nursing Practice: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Yoder, Claire L. McKinley
    Garrigues, Layla
    Smith, Jamie
    Valentine, Leslie
    Murphy, Catherine
    Mcgrew, Kristen
    JOURNAL OF SCHOOL NURSING, 2025,
  • [24] Use of a Daily Goals Checklist for Morning ICU Rounds: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Centofanti, John Eugenio
    Duan, Erick H.
    Hoad, Neala C.
    Swinton, Marilyn E.
    Perri, Dan
    Waugh, Lily
    Cook, Deborah J.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (08) : 1797 - 1803
  • [25] GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study
    O'Brien, Emer
    Walsh, Aisling
    Boland, Fiona
    Collins, Claire
    Harkins, Velma
    Smith, Susan M.
    O'Herlihy, Noirin
    Clyne, Barbara
    Wallace, Emma
    BJGP OPEN, 2023, 7 (04)
  • [26] Understanding cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance: A mixed-methods study
    Borger, Tia
    Feather, Abigayle R.
    Wakeman, Kathleen E.
    Bowling, William
    Burris, Jessica L.
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2024, 29 (10) : 1074 - 1087
  • [27] Patients' understanding of cellulitis and their information needs: a mixed-methods study in primary and secondary care
    Teasdale, Emma
    Lalonde, Anna
    Muller, Ingrid
    Chalmers, Joanne
    Smart, Peter
    Hooper, Julie
    El-Gohary, Magdy
    Thomas, Kim S.
    Santer, Miriam
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2019, 69 (681) : E279 - E286
  • [28] Serious Illness Conversations in advanced kidney disease: a mixed-methods implementation study
    Thamcharoen, Natanong
    Nissaisorakarn, Pitchaphon
    Cohen, Robert A.
    Schonberg, Mara A.
    BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE, 2021, : E928 - E935
  • [29] Tell Me More® As A Tool for Provider Connectedness With Hospitalized Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Belin, Bryana
    Aron, Ishi
    Bhagat, Shyam
    Fornari, Alice
    Ahuja, Taranjeet K.
    JOURNAL OF PATIENT EXPERIENCE, 2024, 11
  • [30] Male Breast Cancer Patients' Perspectives on Their Health Care Situation: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Halbach, Sarah Maria
    Midding, Evamarie
    Ernstmann, Nicole
    Wuerstlein, Rachel
    Weber, Rainer
    Christmann, Sherin
    Kowalski, Christoph
    BREAST CARE, 2020, 15 (01) : 22 - 29