‘How do you know what Aunt Martha looks like?’ A video elicitation study exploring tacit clues in doctor–patient interactions

Authors

  • Stephen G. Henry MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Research Fellow, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
      Dr Stephen G. Henry, University of Michigan, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, 6312 Medical Science Building 1, 1150 W. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5604, USA, E-mail: henrstep@umich.edu
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jane H. Forman ScD MHS,

    1. Research Scientist, Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael D. Fetters MD MPH MA

    1. Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr Stephen G. Henry, University of Michigan, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, 6312 Medical Science Building 1, 1150 W. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5604, USA, E-mail: henrstep@umich.edu

Abstract

Rationale and objectives  Theory suggests that tacit clues inform clinical judgements, but the prevalence and role of tacit clues during clinical interactions is unknown. This study explored whether doctors and patients identify information likely to be tacit clues or judgements based on tacit clues during health maintenance examinations.

Methods  Qualitative analysis of video elicitation interview transcripts involving 18 community-based primary care doctors and 36 patients. Outcomes were description and analysis of tacit clues and judgements based on tacit clues mentioned by participants.

Results  A total of 57 references to tacit clues and 53 references to judgements based on tacit clues were identified from patient and doctor transcripts. Non-verbal behaviours comprised the most common category of tacit clues (53% of doctor comments; 42% of patient comments). Patients mostly discussed judgements based on tacit clues that related to the doctor–patient relationship. Doctors discussed actively using non-verbal behaviours to provide patients with tacit clues about the doctor–patient relationship. They also mentioned tacit clues that informed medical judgements and decision making. Gestalt judgements based on tacit clues were common (33% of doctor comments). Several participants identified instances in which they had difficulty articulating their rationale for specific judgements. Doctors varied widely in how frequently they mentioned tacit clues.

Conclusion  During video elicitation interviews, patients and doctors identified tacit clues and judgements based on these clues as playing a role during health maintenance examinations. Future research should further elucidate the role of tacit clues in medical judgements and doctor–patient relationships.

Ancillary