University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, SectorA Chronic and Vascular Disease, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, Centre of Expertise Healthwise, Groningen, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2018 May 30;13(5):e0194133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194133. eCollection 2018.
Internists appear to define productive interactions, key concept of the Chronic Care Model, as goal-directed, catalyzed by achieving rapport, and depending on the medical context: i.e. medically explained symptoms (MES) or medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).
To explore internists' interaction strategy discourses in the context of MES and MUS.
We interviewed twenty internists working in a Dutch academic hospital, identified relevant text fragments in the interview transcripts and analyzed the data based on a discourse analysis approach.
We identified four interaction strategy discourses: relating, structuring, exploring, and influencing. Each was characterized by a dilemma: relating by 'creating nearness versus keeping distance'; structuring by 'giving space versus taking control'; exploring by 'asking for physical versus psychosocial causes'; and influencing by 'taking responsibility versus accepting a patient's choice. The balance sought in these dilemmas depended on whether the patient's symptoms were medically explained or unexplained (MES or MUS). Towards MUS the internists tended to maintain greater distance, take more control, ask more cautiously questions related to psychosocial causes, and take less responsibility for shared decision making.
Adopting a basic distinction between MES and MUS, the internists in our study appeared to seek a different balance in each of four rather fundamental clinical dilemmas. Balancing these dilemmas seemed more difficult regarding MUS where the internists seemed more distancing and controlling, and tended to draw on their medical expertise. Moving in this direction is counterproductive and in contradiction to guidelines which emphasize that MUS patients warrant emotional support requiring a shift towards interpersonal, empathic communication.
内科医生似乎将富有成效的互动(慢性护理模式的关键概念)定义为以目标为导向、通过建立融洽关系促成的互动,并且取决于医疗背景:即有医学解释的症状(MES)或没有医学解释的症状(MUS)。
探索内科医生在 MES 和 MUS 背景下的互动策略论述。
我们采访了 20 名在荷兰学术医院工作的内科医生,从访谈记录中识别出相关的文本片段,并基于话语分析方法对数据进行分析。
我们确定了四种互动策略论述:关联、结构化、探索和影响。每种论述都有一个困境为特征:关联是通过“建立亲近感还是保持距离”;结构化是通过“给予空间还是控制”;探索是通过“询问身体还是心理社会原因”;影响是通过“承担责任还是接受患者的选择”。这些困境中的平衡取决于患者的症状是否有医学解释(MES 或 MUS)。对于 MUS,内科医生倾向于保持更大的距离,更多地控制,更谨慎地询问与心理社会原因相关的问题,并在共同决策方面承担更少的责任。
本研究中的内科医生根据 MES 和 MUS 之间的基本区别,似乎在四个相当基本的临床困境中寻求不同的平衡。在 MUS 方面,平衡这些困境似乎更加困难,因为内科医生更加疏远和控制,并且倾向于依赖他们的医学专业知识。朝着这个方向发展是适得其反的,与强调 MUS 患者需要情感支持的指南相矛盾,这需要转向人际、共情的沟通。