Interpersonal factors affecting communication in clinical consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study seeks to determine how process and latent errors in the interpersonal, organizational, health system, and public health domains impact doctor/patient communication and patient safety. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: There were 278 physicians from Manitoba, Canada who completed a self-report questionnaire during 2006. The largest specialty was family medicine, followed by internal medicine and pediatrics. Mean years of practice was 16, and 60 percent of the respondents were male. Respondents indicated the extent to which difficulties were encountered when communicating with patients. FINDINGS: The study finds that physicians had more difficulties with patients in the 0-20 year age bracket on 12 of the 18 communication statements. Psychiatry and pediatrics reported more difficulties with language interpreters. Pediatrics reported more difficulties with patients using culturally-based alternative medicine. Internal medicine had more difficulty with patients not appearing to trust or participate in treatment decisions. Patients in the 41-60 years age bracket had the highest mean for non-adherence to treatment plans, health maintenance and needed lifestyle change. The female physician-female patient dyad had fewer communication difficulties on all statements. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Further research should examine how family structure influences health-care delivery and health outcomes. Health care organizations can contribute to improving quality of care by seeking out and correcting sources of latent errors, and by supporting professional development and practice interventions. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Few studies exist that have linked communication difficulties to adverse events. This study provides insight on sources of interpersonal errors in communication that directly impact the physician/patient relationship and which may represent threats to patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".