Interruption and patient satisfaction in resident‐patient consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine interruption patterns between residents and patients as well as the correlations between three categories of interruptions and patient satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach A total of 40 resident/patient consultations in a Canadian clinic were audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed for intrusive, cooperative and unsuccessful interruptions. Findings Residents made significantly more interruptions than patients, especially in the categories of intrusive interruptions. These findings provide support for situated identity theory. High correlations were found between residents and patients on all three categories of interruptions, providing unequivocal support for communication accommodation theory. Patient satisfaction was negatively correlated with residents' intrusive interruptions and positively correlated with residents' cooperative interruptions. Patient satisfaction was higher among patients those who inserted more cooperative interruptions; to increase patient satisfaction, it is necessary to raise patient participation in the medical consultation. In comparison with healthier patients, sicker patients were interrupted more frequently and were less satisfied with the way they were treated. Originality/value The negative correlations between residents' intrusive interruption and patient satisfaction, as well as the positive correlation between patient satisfaction and residents' cooperative interruption provides evidence that patients' perception of the medical consultation is shaped by the nature of interruptions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".