Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Cohort Study Assessing Difficult Patient Encounters in a Walk-In Primary Care Clinic, Predictors and Outcomes

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have found that up to 15% of clinical encounters are experienced as difficult by clinicians.

Objectives

Explore patient and physician characteristics associated with being considered “difficult” and assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Participants

Seven hundred fifty adults presenting to a primary care walk-in clinic with a physical symptom.

Main Measures

Pre-visit surveys assessed symptom characteristics, expectations, functional status (Medical Outcome Study SF-6) and the presence of mental disorders [Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders, (PRIME-MD)]. Post-visit surveys assessed satisfaction (Rand-9), unmet expectations and trust. Two-week assessment included symptom outcome (gone, better, same, worse), functional status and satisfaction. After each visit, clinicians rated encounter difficulty using the Difficult Doctor-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (DDPRQ). Clinicians also completed the Physician’s Belief Scale, a measure of psychosocial orientation.

Key Results

Among the 750 subjects, 133 (17.8%) were perceived as difficult. “Difficult” patients were less likely to fully trust (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77–0.99) or be fully satisfied (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62–0.98) with their clinician, and were more likely to have worsening of symptoms at 2 weeks (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97). Patients involved in “difficult encounters” had more than five symptoms (RR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3), endorsed recent stress (RR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4–3.2) and had a depressive or anxiety disorder (RR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3–4.2). Physicians involved in difficult encounters were less experienced (12 years vs. 9 years, p = 0.0002) and had worse psychosocial orientation scores (77 vs. 67, p < 0.005).

Conclusion

Both patient and physician characteristics are associated with “difficult” encounters, and patients involved in such encounters have worse short-term outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jackson JLKK. Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: clinical predictors and outcomes. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1069–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hahn SR KK, Spitzer RL, Brody D, Williams J, Linzer M, deGruy FV. "The difficult patient": prevalence, psychopathology, and functional impairment. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hahn SR, Thompson, KS, Wills TA, Stern V, Budner NS. The difficult doctor-patient relationship: somatization, personality and psychopathology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(6):647–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jackson JL. KK. Prevalence, impact and prognosis of multisomatoform disoder in primary care: a 5-year follow-up study. Psychosom Med. 2008;70(4):430–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. KW LEHB, Von Korff M, Bush T, Lipscomb P, Russo J, Wagner E. Frustrating patients: physician and patient perspectives among distressed high users of medical services. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:241–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker EA KW, Keegan D, Gardner G, Sullivan M. Predictors of physician frustration in the care of patients with rheumatologic complaints. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1997;19:315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Krebs EE. GJ, Konrad TR. The difficult doctor? Characteristics of physicians who report frustration with patients: an analysis of survey data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(128):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Steinmetz DTH. The difficult patient as perceived by family physicians. Fam Pract. 2001;18:495–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lorber J. Good patients and problem patients: conformity and deviance in a general hospital. J Health Soc Behav. 1975;16:213–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson JE JT, Pinholt EM, Carpenter JL. Content of ambulatory internal medicine practice in an academic army medical center and army community hospital. Military Med. 1988;153:21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson JL SJ, Cheng E, Meyer G. Patients diagnosis and procedures in a military internal medicine clinic; comparison with civilian. Military Med. 1999;164(3):194–97.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jackson JL OMP, Kroenke K. A psychometric comparison of military and civilian medical practices. Mil Med. 1999;164(2):112–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kroenke KSR, Williams JBW. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:258–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rubin HR GB, Rogers WH, Kosinki M, Mchoney CA, Ware JE. Patients ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings: results of the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1993;270:835–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ashworth CD WP, Montano D. A scale to measure physician beliefs about psychosocial aspects of care. Soc Sci Med. 1984;19(11):1235–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levinson W. RD, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. "Physician- patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277(7):553–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hosmer DW LS. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.

  18. Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.

  19. Browne MW CR. Alternative Ways for Assessing Model Fit in Testing Structural Equation Models. In: Bollen KA LJ, editor. Newbury Park Sage, 1993:136-62.

  20. Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures: goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research. 1983;11:325–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carmines EG MJ. Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables in Social Measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981.

  22. AJ KLE, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jackson JL, Kroenke K. Prevalence, impact, and prognosis of multisomatoform disorder in primary care: a 5-year follow-up study. Psychosom Med. 2008;70(4):430–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, Sirbu C, Hodges A, Collins C, Dwamena FC, Lein C, William Given C, Given B, Goddeeris J. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(7):671–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jackson JL. PM, Kroenke K. Outcome and impact of mental disorders in primary care at 5 years. Psychosom Med. 2007;69(3):270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Drossman D. The problem patient: evaluation and care of medical patients with psychocosial disturbances. Annals Intern Med. 1978;88:366–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith RC OG, Hoppe RB, et al. Efficacy of a one-month training block in psychosocial medicine for residents: a controlled study. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stewart M. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith R. Patient-Centered Interviewing: An Evidence Based Method. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2002.

  30. Leiblum SR SE, Seehuus M, DeMaria A. To BATHE or not to BATHE: patient satisfaction with visits to their family physician. Fam Med. 2008;40(6):407–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Delbanco T. Enriching the doctor-patient relationship by inviting the patients perspective. Ann Intern Med. 1992:116-414.

  32. Boyle D. DB, Platt F. Invite, Listen and Summarize: A Patient-Centered Communication Technique. Acad Med. 2005;80:29–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Spitzer RL WJ, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, Hanh SR. Utility of a New Procedure for Diagnosing Mental Disorders in Primary Care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1994;272:1749-56.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ware JE NE, Shelbourne CD, Stewart AL. Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey: a patient application in measuring functioning and well being. In the Medical Outcomes Study Approach Durham Duke University Press 1992.

  35. Groves J. Taking care of the hateful patient. N Engl J Med. 1978;80:1211–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed, in any way, to represent those of the US Army, the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Medicine Division, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Sherri A. Hinchey MD MPH

  2. General Medicine Division, Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Jeffrey L. Jackson MD MPH

  3. Dept of Medicine, 5000 W National Ave, Milwaukee, WI, (301) 414 384 2000 ext 42798, USA

    Jeffrey L. Jackson MD MPH

Authors
  1. Sherri A. Hinchey MD MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey L. Jackson MD MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Jackson MD MPH.

Additional information

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed, in any way, to represent those of the US Army, the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hinchey, S.A., Jackson, J.L. A Cohort Study Assessing Difficult Patient Encounters in a Walk-In Primary Care Clinic, Predictors and Outcomes. J GEN INTERN MED 26, 588–594 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1620-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1620-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation