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
  • [31] Why do some voluntary patients feel coerced into hospitalisation? A mixed-methods study
    Katsakou, Christina
    Marougka, Stamatina
    Garabette, Jonathan
    Rost, Felicitas
    Yeeles, Ksenija
    Priebe, Stefan
    [J]. PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2011, 187 (1-2) : 275 - 282
  • [32] 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.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PATIENT EXPERIENCE, 2024, 11
  • [33] Serious Illness Conversations in advanced kidney disease: a mixed-methods implementation study
    Thamcharoen, Natanong
    Nissaisorakarn, Pitchaphon
    Cohen, Robert A.
    Schonberg, Mara A.
    [J]. BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE, 2021, : E928 - E935
  • [34] 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
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2019, 69 (681) : E279 - E286
  • [35] Women's experiences of diagnosis and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: a mixed-methods study in general practice
    Hillman, Sarah C.
    Bryce, Carol
    Caleyachetty, Rishi
    Dale, Jeremy
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2020, 70 (694) : E322 - E329
  • [36] Mixed-methods approach to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance: study protocol for the 'PRO patients study'
    Kersting, Christine
    Barzel, Anne
    Mortsiefer, Achim
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (07):
  • [37] Diagnosis Documentation Done Right: Cross-Specialty Standard for the Diagnosis Section in German Discharge Summaries - A Mixed-Methods Study
    Frings, Julian
    Rust, Paul
    Meister, Sven
    Prinz, Christian
    Fehring, Leonard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2025, 40 (06) : 1387 - 1402
  • [38] Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
    Brett, Jo
    Davey, Zoe
    Matley, Fiona
    Butcher, Hugh
    Keenan, John
    Catton, Darryl
    Watson, Eila
    Wright, Penny
    Gavin, Anna
    Glaser, Adam W.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (11):
  • [39] Glycogen storage disease type III: a mixed-methods study to assess the burden of disease
    Evins, Ayla
    Mayhew, Jill
    Cimms, Tricia
    Whyte, Julie
    Vong, Kathy
    Hribal, Elizabeth
    Evans, Christopher J.
    Grimm, Andrew
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM, 2024, 15
  • [40] Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study
    Polomeni, Alice
    Bordessoule, Dominique
    Malak, Sandra
    [J]. BMC CANCER, 2023, 23 (01)