Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how primary care physicians respond to ambiguous patient symptom presentations.
DESIGN: Observational study, using thematic analysis within a large cross-sectional study employing standardized patients (SPs), to describe physician responses to ambiguous patient symptoms and patterns of physician-patient interaction.
SETTING: Community-based primary care offices within a metropolitan area.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three primary care physicians (internists and family physicians).
METHOD: Participating physicians had 2 unannounced SP visits randomly inserted into their daily practice schedules and the visits were audiotaped and transcribed. A coding system focusing on physician responses to concerned patients presenting with ambiguous symptoms was developed through an inductive process. Thematic analyses were then applied to coded data.
RESULTS: Physicians’ responses to ambiguous symptoms were categorized into 2 primary patterns: high partnering (HP) and usual care (UC). HP was characterized by greater responsiveness to patients’ expression of concern, positivity, sensitivity to patients’ clues about life circumstances, greater acknowledgment of symptom ambiguity, and solicitation of patients’ perspectives on their problems. UC was characterized by denial of ambiguity and less inclusion of patients’ perspectives on their symptoms. Neither HP physicians nor UC physicians actively included patients in treatment planning.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians respond to ambiguity by either ignoring the ambiguity and becoming more directive (UC) or, less often, by acknowledging the ambiguity and attempting to explore symptoms and patient concerns in more detail (HP). Future areas of study could address whether physicians can learn HP behaviors and whether HP behaviors positively affect health outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hahn SR, Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, et al. The difficult patient: prevalence, psychopathology and functional impairment [erratum appears in J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:191]. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:1–8.
Schwenk TL, Romano SE. Managing the difficult physician-patient relationship. Am Fam Physician. 1992;46:1503–9.
Schwenk TL, Marquez JT, Lefever RD, Cohen M. Physician and patient determinants of difficult physician-patient relationships. J Fam Pract. 1989;28:59–63.
Lin EH, Katon W, Von Korff M, et al. Frustrating patients: physician and patient perspectives among distressed high users of medical services. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:241–6.
Kroenke K, Price RK. Symptoms in the community. Prevalence, classification, and psychiatric comorbidity. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1685–9.
Kroenke K, Mangelsdorff AD. Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy and outcome. Psychosom Med. 1989;86:262–6.
Safran DG, Montgomery JE, Chang H, Murphy J, Rogers WH. Switching doctors: predictors of voluntary disenrollment from primary physician’s practice. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:130–6.
Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctorpatient relationships. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1365–70.
Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physicianpatient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–9.
Little P, Dorward M, Warner G, Stephens K, Senior J, Moore M. Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study. BMJ. 2004;328:444–53.
Ring A, Dorwick C, Humphris G, Salmon P. Do patients with unexplained physical symptoms pressurize general practitioners for somatic treatment? A qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328:1057–60.
Hahn SR, Thompson KS, Wills TA, Stern V, Budner NS. The difficult doctor-patient relationship: somatisation, personality and psychopathology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:647–57.
Barsky AJ, Ahern DK, Bailey ED, Delamater BA. Predictors of persistent palpitations and continued medical utilization. J Fam Pract. 1997;42:465–72.
Mead N, Bower P, Hann M. The impact of general practitioners’ patient-centredness on patients’ post-consultation satisfaction and enablement. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:283–99.
Suchman AL, Roter D, Green M, Lipkin M Jr. Physician satisfaction with primary care office visits. Collaborative Study Group of the American Academy on Physician and Patient. Med Care. 1993;31:1083–92.
Horowitz CR, Suchman AL, Branch WT Jr, Frankel RM. What do doctors find meaningful about their work? Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:772–5.
Salmon P, Peters S, Stanley I. Patients’ perceptions of medical explanations for somatisation disorders: qualitative analysis. BMJ. 1999;318:372–6.
Fiscella K, Meldrum S, Franks P, et al. Patient trust: is it related to patient-centered behavior of primary care physicians? Med Care. 2004;42:1049–55.
Williams RG. Have standardized patient examinations stood the test of time and experience? Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:215–22.
Tamblyn RM. Use of standardized patients in the assessment of medical practice. CMAJ. 1998;158:205–7; Editorial.
McLeod PJ, Tamblyn RM, Gayton D, et al. Use of standardized patients to assess between-physician variations in resource utilization. JAMA. 1997;278:1164–8.
Carney PA, Dietrich AJ, Eliassen MS, Owen M, Badger LW. Recognizing and managing depression in primary care: a standardized patient study. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:965–72.
Carney PA. AIDS patient care and STDs. Using unannounced standardized patients to assess HIV preventive practices of family nurse practitioners and family physicians. Nurse Pract. 1998;23:56–76.
Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Schnarch B, Colliver JA, Benaroya S, Snell L. Can standardized patients predict real-patient satisfaction with the doctor-patient relationship? Teach Learn Med. 1994;1:36–44.
Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22.
Moustakis C. Phenomenological Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1994.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.
Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284:1021–7.
Salmon P, Dorwick CF, Ringe A, Humphris GM. Voiced but unheard agendas: qualitative analysis of the psychosocial cues that patients with unexplained symptoms present to general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:171–6.
Beach MC, Roter D, Larson S, Levinson W, Ford DE, Frankel R. What do physicians tell patients about themselves? A qualitative analysis of physician self-disclosure. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:911–6.
Suchman AL, Botelho RJ, Hinton-Walker P. Partnerships in Healthcare: Transforming Relational Process. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 1998.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:796–804.
Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:51–6.
Bertakis KD, Azari R, Callahan EJ, Helms LJ, Robbins JA. The impact of physician practice style on medical charges. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:31–6.
Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Observational study of effect of patient-centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations. BMJ. 2001;323:908–11.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, Galajda J, Meredith L, Sangster M. Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control. 1999;3:25–30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors have no conflicts to report.
See editorial by Sach man, p. xxx.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seaburn, D.B., Morse, D., McDaniel, S.H. et al. Physician responses to ambiguous patient symptoms. J GEN INTERN MED 20, 525–530 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0093.x
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0093.x