Physicians With High Productivity And Satisfaction Scores Employ Strong Patient-Centered Communication Skills

People are forever telling me that I am wasting my time talking to providers about the need to improve their patient communication skills.  Naysayers typically cite one of the following reasons for why things will never change:

Reason 1 – Every physician thinks they already have good patient communication skills.

Reason 2 – Physicians don’t have time to talk to patients

Reason 3 – Physicians don’t get paid to talk to patients

Reason 1 is relatively easy to debunk. After all, if all physicians were really such good communicators:

• poor communications skills wouldn’t consistently top the list of patient complaints about physicians
• patient non-adherence wouldn’t be so high since physician and patients would always agree on what is wrong and what needs to be done
• patients would not be walking out of their doctor’s office not understanding what they were told
• patients would not experience so many communication-related medical errors

Reason 3 requires a little straightforward logic:

Since physicians are paid to diagnose and treat patients presenting problems…and the accuracy of their diagnosis and treatment depends upon their physicians’ ability to elicit and listen to the patient’s story…then indeed physicians are already being paid to talk to patients.

Reason 3 (physicians don’t have time) has always been hard to address. That is until now.

Most us tend to think about physician time on a zero sum basis.  Take the office visit for example.  Providers will argue that they either spend more time trying to be patient-centered (associated with great patient experiences) or they can use less time to diagnose and treat patients the way they have always done – but no way can they do both at the same time.

A recent published study conducted by HealthPartners in Minneapolis suggests that physician time is not a zero sum game – that providers can in fact be productive while at the same time creating a satisfying patient experience.

Individual productivity and patient experience scores were calculated and plotted for 22 HealthPartners physicians using a scatter diagram like that shown in Figure 1 (for demonstration purposes only). What the study found was that a relatively equal number of physicians fell into each of 4 quadrants – strong productivity/strong satisfaction, strong productivity/weak satisfaction, weak productivity/strong satisfaction and weak productivity/weak satisfaction.

Figure 1

The researchers then looked to explain the difference between physicians in each of the quadrants. They ended up identifying a set of “behaviors and characteristics” to help explain why some physicians had strong productivity/strong satisfaction scores while others did not.

Physicians in the strong productivity/strong satisfaction quadrant exhibited the following behaviors and characteristics:

• Focused on teaching and explanations
• Conveys warmth from the start
• Well-planned flow of visit with focus on patient’s agenda
• Controlled script with clear parts
• Extremely personable—connects with every patient
• Always looking for buy-in from the patient that s/he fully understands
• Recap the history: “I read your chart …”
• Confident but not arrogant
• Finishes dictation and coding each day
• Clinic staff enters orders and prepares after-visit summary

Physicians in the weak productivity/weak satisfaction quadrant exhibited the following behaviors and characteristics:

• Lack of “being there” emotionally
• Lack of smiling
• Abrupt actions
• Behavior changes when not interested in the “case”
• Patients kept waiting and wondering
• No handshake
• Sense of interrogating to get a diagnosis
• No attempt to match the patient’s energy

What struck me about these lists was that were dominated by the presence (strong productivity/strong satisfaction) or absence (weak productivity/weak satisfaction) of communication-related “behaviors and characteristics.”

Perhaps not so surprisingly, the behaviors and characteristics of physicians in the strong productivity/strong satisfaction are consistent with those traits commonly associated with a patient-centered style of communications. This evidence belies the conventional belief among physicians that they will be less productive (rather than more productive) by adopting a patient-centered style of communications with their patients.

Based upon the evidence, HealthPartners has since gone on to provide its physicians with useful guidelines for how to improve their productivity and patient experience scores.

Take Aways Physicians and practice managers need to seriously reexamine:

1. their assumptions about the value of and barriers to improving their patient communication skills
2. the evidence in support of the adoption patient-centered communications skills and styles

Physicians and managers should consider assessing the quality and effectiveness of their existing patient communication skills. The last time most physicians focused on their patient communication skills was back in medical school.

Implement interventions and guidelines designed to improve the patient-centered communication skills of physicians and their care teams.

That’s what I think…what’s your opinion?

Sources:

Boffeli, T., et al. Patient Experience and Physician Productivity: Debunking the Mythical Divide at HealthPartners Clinics. The Permanente Journal/ Fall 2012/ Volume 16 No. 4.

Thoughts On Patient Engagement, Patient-Centeredness and Communication-Centered Medical Records

Sometimes I come across a post that I absolutely must share… such is the case with this re-print of a post by Rob Lamberts, MD, a primary care physician practicing “somewhere in the southeastern United States.” He blogs regularly at More Musings (of a Distractible Kind), where this post first appeared.

“Patient engagement.”

What is “Patient Engagement?”  It sounds like a season of “The Bachelor” where a doctor dates hot patients.  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was. After all, patient engagement is hot; it’s the new buzz phrase for health wonks.  There was even an entire day at the recent HIMSS conference dedicated to “Patient engagement.”  I think the next season of “The Bachelor” should feature a wonk at HIMSS looking for a wonkettes to love.

Here’s how the Internets define “Patient engagement”:

• The Get Well Network (with a smiley face) calls it: “A national health priority and a core strategy for performance improvement.”
• Leonard Kish refers to it as “The Blockbuster Drug of the Century” (it narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Dave Chase.
• Steve Wilkins refers to it as “The Holy Grail of Health Care” (it also narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Kevin MD.
• On the HIMSS Patient Engagement Day, the following topics were discussed:
  • How to make Patients Your Partners in Satisfying Meaningful Use Stage 2 Objectives; Case Studies in Patient Engagement, session #64;
  • Review Business Cases for Implementing a Patient-Centered Communication Strategy and Building Patient 2.0, session #84;: and
  • Engaging People in Health Through Consumer-Facing Devices and Tools, session #102.

So then, “patient engagement” is:

• a strategy
• a drug
• a grail (although I already have a grail)
• a “meaningful use” objective
• something that requires a business case
• something that requires “consumer-facing devices and tools” (I already have one of those too).

I hope that clears things up.

So why am I being so snarky about this?  Why make fun of a term used by many people I trust and respect?  I was recently discussing my ideas on a communication-centered medical record with a colleague.  At the end of my pontification, my friend agreed, saying: “you are right; communication is an important part of health care.”  I surprised him by disagreeing.  Communication isn’t important to health care, communication is health care. Care is not a static thing, it is the transaction of ideas. The patient tells me what is going on, I listen, I share my thoughts with the patient (and other providers), and the patient uses the result of this transaction for their own benefit.

But our fine system doesn’t embrace this definition.  We indict ourselves when we talk about “patient engagement” as if it’s a goal, as it reveals the current state of disengagement .  Patients are not the center of care.  Patients are a source of data so doctors can get “meaningful use” checks.  Patients are the proof that our organizations are accountable.  Patients live in our “patient-centered” medical homes.

Replacing patients as the object of our attention (and affection) is our dear friend, the medical record.  We faun over medical records.  Companies earn epic profits from medical records.  We hold huge conferences to celebrate medical records.  We charge patients money to get to see their own medical records.  We even build special booths (portals) where patients are allowed to peer in through a peep hole and see parts of their medical records.

This is why I’ve had such a hard time finding a record system for my new practice.  I want my IT to center on patients, but medical record systems are self-absorbed.  They are an end in themselves.  They are all about making records, not engaging patients.  They are for the storage of ideas, not the transfer of them.  Asking medical records to engage patients is like asking a dictionary to tell a story.

The problem is, documentation has taken over health care.  Just as the practice of a religion can overshadow its purpose: the search for God, documentation chokes out the heart of health care: the communication of ideas .  It did this because we are paid to document, not communicate.  Communication takes time and it is not reimbursed.  Communication prevents unnecessary care, which is a revenue stream.  Communication eliminates waste, and waste is food that feeds the system, the bricks that build the wings to hospitals, the revenue source that pads IT budgets.

So what’s a doctor to do?  I’m not sure.  I am still looking for a solution that will meet the central goals of my practice:

• Communication – health care is a hassle,  with communication relegated to the exam room.  I want care to be easily accessible for my patients,using IT in one of its strongest areas: tools for easy communication.
• Collaboration – the patient should be engaged, but in a two-way relationship.  This means they not only should have access to their records, they should contribute to those records.
• Organization – I want a calendar documenting visits, symptoms, problems, medications, past and future events in each patient’s record.  I also want a task-management system I share with patients to make sure care gets done.
• Education – I want to practice high-quality medicine, care that is informed by good information and the best evidence.  Why not do a yearly stress test?  There’s evidence for that.  Why not use antibiotics for sinus infections?  There’s evidence there.  Why use an ACE inhibitor to control the blood pressure?  I need to be able to support my recommendations with data, not just “because the doctor said so.”

The point of all of this is the moving of medicine from an industry where money is milked from disease to a communications network where diseases are prevented.  ”Patient engagement” that is done to the patient for the sake of the doctor or hospital is a sham.  Engagement is about interaction, listening, and learning in relationship to another person.  Engagement is not a strategy, it is care.

If only I could find the tools to make this happen.

Patient Activation Is Only Half The Solution – Physicians Need To Be Activated As Well

Not long ago Nick Dawson, a friend and fellow blogger, paid me the compliment of saying I had inspired a post of his.   Well Nick now you have inspired me…and this post is the result.

Regarding the February Health Affairs edition on Patient Engagement the and follow-on Washington D.C. briefing, Nick writes:

Personally, I was disheartened by some word choices. Implying patients need to be activated suggests patients are passive and something has to be done to them in order for them to care about their health and interactions with healthcare providers. That misses the mark.

What about physician activation? … We should be helping health systems and providers find ways to reduce the stress and fear for patients who are already engaged.

Nick is right. 

The “Belle of the Health Affairs Ball” based on the social media coverage was Judith Hibbard’s interesting work linking health care costs to a person’s level of health activation.   While Dr. Hibbard takes pains to differentiate “activation” from “engagement,” most people are quick to conflate the two.  (Patient-centered communication bears a close resemblance to patient activation as well.)  Nick’s point is that focusing just on what the patient brings to the party in terms of their “knowledge, skills and confidence” is only half the problem.

What about physician activation?  Where in the Health Affairs special, or anywhere else for that matter, are discussions about the need to make sure that physicians (and other clinicians) have the knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively manage all the “already engaged” patients among us?

It Can’t Just Be About Fixing Patient Behavior

For too long, the focus among health care thought leaders has been all about fixing the patient.   If only patient were more engaged, more knowledgeable, more compliant, more trusting, more prepared, ask more questions, etc. 

There is a significant body of research which suggests that provider behaviors (like their communication style) are just as responsible as patients for many of the short coming in health care today.

Just as PAM research has shown that more activated patients generate lower costs…studies have shown that the physicians with strong patient-centered communication skills have lower costs as well.   I guess you could say that physicians with a physician-directed, bio-medical communication style have an equivalent of a 1-2 level of activation whereas physicians with a patient-centered communication style have an equivalent activation level of 3 to 4.

Which Comes First – Activated Physicians Or Activated Patients?

I would argue that the real challenge facing providers today is to how to avoid disengaging or deactivating otherwise engaged and activated patients.

That’s because most people are already engaged in their own care, albeit not necessarily in the same way that providers want or expect.   So too, patients may well believe that they have the skills and knowledge they feel they need to deal with their own health…even if it is different from those skills, etc. measured by tools like PAM.

See : Patients Are Often More Engaged In Their Health Than Providers Think

In fact there is evidence to support this.  Patients with a regular source of care displayed significantly lower levels of patient activation that those without a regular source of care.  According to the researchers, “one possible explanation is that respondents with a regular physician are more likely to take a passive, deferential role in their care, believing their health care needs are being met by their provider(s).” *

The degree to which there is a “meeting of the minds” on engagement and activation between patient and physician, particularly during the office visit, will determine if patients are as engaged and activated when they leave the doctor’s office as they were when they entered.  It all boils down to how well the physician and patient are able to communicate.

Here’s what I mean.  How engaged or activated is a person going to be if what they have to say is interrupted, ignored or otherwise dismissed by busy, stressed  clinicians?  Is a patient going to share information or new skills they found on the internet with their physician if they are dismissed as a Googler?

The Take Away?

Nothing against PAM or Dr. Hibbard’s work which stand on its own merits.  Rather, it’s about health care being a two-way affair…with patients and clinicians both have a stake in health outcomes.  The sooner health care providers, academic researchers, and health publications like Health Affairs realize this…the sooner things can improve.

That’s what I think. What’s your opinion?

Sources:

Levinson, W., Lesser, C. S., & Epstein, R. M. (2010). Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 29(7).

Olson, D. P., & Windish, D. M. (2010). Communication discrepancies between physicians and hospitalized patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(15), 1302-7. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.239

Roumie, C. L., Greevy, R., Wallston, K. a, Elasy, T. a, Kaltenbach, L., Kotter, K., Dittus, R. S., et al. (2010). Patient centered primary care is associated with patient hypertension medication adherence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Bertakis, K. D., & Azari, R. (2011). Patient-centered care is associated with decreased health care utilization. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 24(3), 229-39.

* Alexander, J. a, Hearld, L. R., Mittler, J. N., & Harvey, J. (2011). Patient-Physician Role Relationships and Patient Activation among Individuals with Chronic Illness. Health Services Research, 1-23.

The Truth About Those High Patient Satisfaction Scores For Doctor-Patient Communication

We have all seen them.  You know…those charts showing us how satisfied patients are with the way their doctors communicate.  Did your doctor listen to you?  Did you doctor explain things in a way you could understand?

Funny thing about these charts, whether they be for hospitals or doctor’s offices,  1) they never seem to change from year to year – 80% – 90% of doctors communicate well with patients and 2) patients consistently rate their doctors’ communication skills as high.

The problem with satisfaction data related to doctor-patient communication is that, at face value, it simply doesn’t correlate with other published data on the subject. There is a “disconnect” between what patients say in satisfaction surveys and what happens in actual practice.

Here’s what I mean.

Recent studies of hospitalized patients have shown that:

• 68% to 85.3% of patients could not name the physician in charge of their care.
• 43% to 58% of patients did not know the reason for their hospital admission.
• 67% of patients received a new medication while hospitalized… yet 25% of these patients were unaware that they were given a new medication.
• 90% of patients given a new medication reported never being told of adverse effects of the new medication.
• 38% of patients were not aware of planned tests for the day.

The amazing thing was that majority of these patients (up to 58% in one study) said that their doctors always explained things in ways they could understand!

The same types of “disconnects” show up in satisfaction surveys done in doctor’s offices.   Studies of primary care physicians show that:

• Patients are interrupted by their physicians within the first 18 seconds of their opening statement during office visits

• Physicians and patients agree on the reason for the office visit only 50% to 70% of the time

• Physician underestimate the patient’s desire for health information in 65% of the time

• 50% of patients walk out of their doctor’s office not understanding what their doctor told them to do

• Patient are not asked if they have any questions in up to 50% of office visits

Again, I am sure these same patients praised their physicians’ communication skills on one or another satisfaction survey.

So What Explains The “Disconnect” Between How Physicians Actually Talk To Patients…And Patient Satisfaction?

Today’s high patient satisfaction scores are an artifact of the way we (when we become patients) have been “socialized” when it comes to a trip to the doctor’s office. Here’s what I mean.

1) Beginning with childhood, we have all been socialized to assume the “sick role” when seeing the doctor.  From our initial visits to the pediatrician with our Mom we quickly learned that the doctor is in charge and that our Mom’s role (and ours) is to sit passive by while the doctor does most of the talking.  Notwithstanding all the “talk” about how empowered patients are today, most of us still assume the “sick role” when seeing our doctor.

2) Accustomed as most of us today are to the sick role, and accepting the fact that physicians are very busy, we are not surprised when doctors don’t seem to listen to us or interrupt us. We are not surprised that they don’t have time for all our questions or frown on us bringing in lists of things we have researched on the internet. This for most patients is what we are used to…it is what we are satisfied with given that most of us have don’t another or better point of comparison, i.e., a highly patient-centered physician.

3) Consistent with the sick role, we as patients “tend to be overly patient.” We “grant our doctors the benefit of every doubt.” Most of us begrudgingly put up with poor service, inconvenience, and unnecessary discomforts, until we can’t overlook it anymore. Even then we are reluctant to take our busy, overburdened doctor to task for these shortcomings by giving them a low score on a satisfaction survey.

The Take Away?

Hospital, medical group, IPA and ACO executives need to:

• Be cautious about putting too much credence in patient ratings of physician communication skills. “One can assume that the quality of care is actually worse than surveys of patient satisfaction would seem to show” to quote Avedis Donabedian, MD, an old professor of mine.

• Recognize that high quality, patient-centered communications (the gold standard for physician-patient communications) is essential to patient engagement, optimal patient outcomes and great patient experiences. If physician communication were as great as patients satisfaction surveys suggest, we wouldn’t be having the problems we are with low levels of patient engagement and non-adherence.

• Benchmark the patient centered communication skills of the primary care physicians on their staff (employed and otherwise) and compare the findings against established best practices.

• Take the additional reimbursement you will get from CMS for your patient high satisfaction scores and invest it back into improving the patient-centered communication skills of their physicians and patients. That is, if you don’t have to pay a penalty to CMS for high re-admission rates – which by the way is another by-product of poor physician-patient communication.

Remember that there is perhaps no better, more cost-effective way to differentiate your physicians (and your brand) these days than to have physicians on staff who really know how to listen and relate to patients.

That’s my opinion…what’s your?

Sources:

Makaryus, A. et al. Patients’ Understanding of Their Treatment Plans and Diagnosis at Discharge. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2005;80(8):991-994

Boland, B. et al. Patient-Physician Agreement on Reasons for Ambulatory General Medical Examinations. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1998;73(1), 109-117.

O’Leary, K. et al. Hospitalized Patients’ Understanding of Their Plan of Care. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2010;85(1):47-52.

Olson, D. et al. Communication Discrepancies Between Physicians and Hospitalized Patients. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2010;170(15):1302-1307

The 10 Commandments of Patient Engagement

As a patient, care giver, researcher and a human being, here ‘s my “take” on what physicians and hospitals, and all the entities that work with them like health plans, ACOs , etc. need to do to effectively increase patient engagement in 2013 and beyond.

1. Act like you are glad to see them (patients) and have time for them… no matter how busy you really are

1. Say something relevant to suggest that you actually remember who they are – don’t get this one wrong
2. Ask how they have been since their last appointment and what brings them in to see you today
3. Probe for the patient’s ideas as to the cause of their complaints and what they would like you to do for them
4. Listen to what the patient has to say without interruption – ask clarifying questions
5. Tell the patient what you recommend doing in the way of tests, treatments and new medications…and explain why you are making those recommendations – ask if that’s ok with the patient…if it’s not ok find out why
6. Pay attention to patient-initiated cues (loss of a job or loved one, sighing…) – they probably are a call for help
7. Express empathy and support to patients
8. Find out what your patient’s health goals are and what steps they believe they can take to achieve them, e.g.,  care planning
9. Ask about or suggest ways that you and your team can support  patients’ long-term care plans

The challenge most physicians and other providers face is not one of how to engage patients.  Most of us patients (people) are already engaged to the extent we:

• went to the bother of calling your staff to make an appointment (never a pleasant experience)
• took time off work to travel to your office
• wait an average of 24 minutes to see you
• sit for 24 minutes thinking about what we want to talk with you about and how you are too busy to listen

Rather the challenge for providers is how to be engaging to patients.  Health care after all is an intensely personal and social interaction between human beings.   My apology to all the health information technology folks who suggest EMRs, web portals and smart phone health apps are the best way to engage patients (they are not).  I for one am convinced that people would be more engaged in the care (they way providers expect and prefer) if only providers were more engaging…lack of time and reimbursement notwithstanding.

I am sure I have missed something so please feel free to add to the list.

Check out more posts on Patient Engagement:

Patient Engagement Is A Physician-Patient Communication Challenge…Not A Health Information Technology Challenge

 Patients Are Often More Engaged In Their Health Than Providers Think

Patent Portals. PHRs, & On-line Decision-Support Tools Alone Will Not Lead To Greater Patient Engagement

Patient Engagement  Infographic