scholarly journals Negotiating uncertainty in clinical encounters: A narrative exploration of naturally occurring primary care consultations

2021 ◽  
Vol 291 ◽  
pp. 114467
Author(s):  
Olaug S. Lian ◽  
Sarah Nettleton ◽  
Åge Wifstad ◽  
Christopher Dowrick
2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 498-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Dawson Estrada ◽  
DeAnne K. Hilfinger Messias

Purpose: Language asymmetry between patients and providers may influence the context, content, and quality of health care communication, affecting patient outcomes and contributing to health disparities. This research examined interpreter-mediated, primary care encounters between English-speaking nurse practitioners and Spanish-speaking adult patients. Method: Situational analysis guided the collection, analysis, and interpretation of audio-recorded clinical encounter data. Results: Interpreter-mediated communication was situated within intersecting social, economic, political, and health systems contexts. Three modes of collaborative knowledge generations were Constructing Connections, Constructing Mutual Understanding, and Constructing Effective Systems Navigation Strategies. Discussion: These findings illustrate how interactants contributed individual and collective knowledge across multiple systems to address patient concerns. Conclusion: The analysis revealed ways in which communication processes may influence both providers’ diagnostic and interventional decision-making and patients’ understanding and potential compliance. Ongoing preparation and support for intraprofessional collaboration is needed to ensure effective communication and mitigate untoward effects of language asymmetries in clinical encounters.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Drake ◽  
Heather Batchelder ◽  
Tyler Lian ◽  
Meagan Cannady ◽  
Morris Weinberger ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing the deleterious effects on patients’ health outcomes. Evidence is needed regarding approaches to implementing such screening in routine clinical encounters to enhance social care integration. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices.Methods: Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from providers and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients (n = 2,192) who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care at three of the center’s clinics (Adult Medicine, Family Medicine, and Pediatrics) were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. We used HEIF domains to inform a directed content analysis.Results: Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple levels (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.Conclusion: Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care. Our findings highlight the dynamic relationship between barriers and facilitators to implementation at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.


Author(s):  
Steve Moorhead

AbstractThe feasibility and effectiveness of trainee psychiatrists providing CBT in primary care was assessed by a triangulated procedure of service overview, trainee feedback and assessment of clinical measures. Hitherto trainees sought ‘suitable’ cases by individual request. In the primary-care setting: 82% of 11 trainees (50% previously) completed a ‘short case’ treatment within a 6-month attachment; 86% of trainees found the level of supervision ‘about right’; depression and anxiety scores for patients (n = 16) achieved statistically significant gains and showed moderate to large effect sizes. Although there was no comparator group, findings were just above the IAPT aim of a 50% recovery. Conclusions are that completion of their ‘short case’ experience within a 6-month attachment is feasible in a primary-care setting. Evidence that patients and the service also benefited demonstrates this to be good and ethical ‘business’ for the service provider. Integrating these skills into routine medical psychiatric practice may remain a later supervision need. Other training experiences including psychological treatments could initially be best met in less testing clinical encounters than those experienced in secondary care. Locally agreed formal arrangements would facilitate this and there is potential for the development of greater cross-service understanding in the longer term.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 730-744
Author(s):  
Thea Luig ◽  
Louanne Keenan ◽  
Denise L. Campbell-Scherer

We sought to understand the impact of primary care conversations about obesity on people’s everyday life health experience and practices. Using a dialogic narrative perspective, we examined key moments in three very different clinical encounters, the patients’ journals, and follow-up interviews over several weeks. We trace how people living with obesity negotiate narrative alternatives that are offered during clinical dialogue to transform their own narrative and experience of obesity and self. Findings provide pragmatic insights into how providers can play a significant role in shifting narratives about obesity and self and how such co-constructed narratives translate into change and tangible health outcomes in people’s lives.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasey R Boehmer ◽  
Claudia C Dobler ◽  
Anjali Thota ◽  
Megan Branda ◽  
Rachel Giblon ◽  
...  

PurposeTo pilot test the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters.MethodsA pre–post study involving 11 clinicians and 100 patients was conducted at two primary care clinics within a single health system in the Midwest. The study examined clinicians’ perceptions about ICAN feasibility, patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions about encounter success, videographic differences in encounter topics, and medication adherence 6 months after an ICAN encounter.Results39/40 control encounters and 45/60 ICAN encounters yielded usable data. Clinicians reported ICAN use was feasible. In ICAN encounters, patients discussed diet, being active and taking medications more. Clinicians scored themselves poorer regarding visit success than their patients scored them; this effect was more pronounced in ICAN encounters. ICAN did not improve 6-month medication adherence or lengthen visits.ConclusionThis pilot study suggests that using ICAN in primary care is feasible, efficient and capable of modifying conversations. With lessons learned in this pilot, we are conducting a randomised trial of ICAN versus usual care in diverse clinical settings.Trial registration numberNCT02390570.


Endocrine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 552-560
Author(s):  
Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez ◽  
◽  
Alejandro Salcido-Montenegro ◽  
Naykky M. Singh-Ospina ◽  
Spyridoula Maraka ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-32
Author(s):  
M. Torlutter ◽  
S. C. Onwukwe ◽  
D. Pretorius ◽  
N. M. Mpangula ◽  
O. B. Omole

Dyspepsia is a common reason for the clinical encounters in primary care. Two common causes of dyspepsia are gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). These diseases clinically overlap and may present diagnostic and management challenges in primary care, especially in low resource settings. Proton pump inhibitors, eradication of H. pylori infection and endoscopy form the backbone of management of both diseases. This article reviews current considerations in the diagnosis and management of GERD and PUD in primary care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document