Patterns of Communication during the Preanesthesia Visit

• Published in: Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) Vol. 111; no. 5; pp. 971 - 978
• Main Authors: ZOLLO, Raymond A, LURIE, Stephen J, EPSTEIN, Ronald, WARD, Denham S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 01-11-2009
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Communication; Female; Humans; Informed Consent; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Patient-Centered Care; Physician-Patient Relations; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Anesthesia
• ISSN: 0003-3022; 1528-1175
• DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b8f7e3

Effective communication in the preanesthesia clinic is important in patient-centered care. Although patient-physician communication has been studied by recordings in other contexts, there have been no observational studies of the communication patterns of anesthesiologists and patients during the preanesthesia interview.
Two experienced standardized patients were trained to portray the same clinical situation by using different coping styles (maximizing information or "monitoring" vs. minimizing information or "blunting"). Interviews of standardized patients by anesthesiologists took place in the preanesthesia clinic and recorded with the knowledge of the subjects. Audio recordings were analyzed, and the visit was separated into nine components. Discussion of the risks/informed consent process was examined, looking for discussion of common morbidities. The standardized patients completed a survey on the patient-centeredness of the interview.
Twenty-seven subjects participated in this study. Interviews with the monitor required more time: 17.4 min (confidence interval [CI] 15.2-19.6, n = 24) versus 14.5 min (CI 13.1-16.0, n = 25), P < 0.05. Most interview time was spent in obtaining the history; 2.4 min (CI 1.8-3.1) was spent discussing risks with the monitor, and only 1.6 min (CI 1.2-2.0) was spent with the blunter (P < 0.05). Neither the monitor nor the blunter scored the interview highly for involving the patient in determining the goals of the anesthetic and recovery.
Direct recording of interactions with standardized patients is a feasible method of studying the communication skills of anesthesiologists. For this study, the anesthesia providers were able to modify their approach depending on patient type, but the monitor received more information.