Skip to main content
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1979 Oct;69(10):1021–1025. doi: 10.2105/ajph.69.10.1021

Presence of observers at patient-practitioner interactions: impact on coordination of care and methodologic implications.

B Starfield, D Steinwachs, I Morris, G Bause, S Siebert, C Westin
PMCID: PMC1619158  PMID: 484755

Abstract

In this study in an urban practice, the presence of a neutral observer at follow-up visits enhanced the extent to which practitioners recognized problems which patients had in a previous visit. This improvement was limited to those problems which initially had been mentioned by patients as requiring follow-up. Follow-up of problems initially mentioned by practitioners as needing follow-up was not improved by the observer unless the problem was also mentioned by the patient. Investigators whose information about practitioner-patient interaction depends upon the presence of an observer should be aware of this and possibly other effects. Although routine involvement of a neutral observer in patient-practitioner interactions is probably undesirable, selected deployment of observers or similar alternatives may be useful in situations where practitioner-patient communication is inadequate.

Full text

PDF
1021

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Hulka B. S., Cassel J. C., Kupper L. L., Burdette J. A. Communication, compliance, and concordance between physicians and patients with prescribed medications. Am J Public Health. 1976 Sep;66(9):847–853. doi: 10.2105/ajph.66.9.847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hulka B. S., Kupper L. L., Cassel J. C., Mayo F. Doctor-patient communication and outcomes among diabetic patients. J Community Health. 1975 Fall;1(1):15–27. doi: 10.1007/BF01318940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Korsch B. M., Freemon B., Negrete V. F. Practical implications of doctor-patient interaction analysis for pediatric practice. Am J Dis Child. 1971 Feb;121(2):110–114. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1971.02100130064006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. McDonald C. J. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med. 1976 Dec 9;295(24):1351–1355. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197612092952405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Simborg D. W., Starfield B. H., Horn S. D., Yourtee S. A. Information factors affecting problem follow-up in ambulatory care. Med Care. 1976 Oct;14(10):848–856. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197610000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Starfield B. H., Simborg D. W., Horn S. D., Yourtee S. A. Continuity and coordination in primary care: their achievement and utility. Med Care. 1976 Jul;14(7):625–636. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197607000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Starfield B., Simborg D., Johns C., Horn S. Coordination of care and its relationship to continuity and medical records. Med Care. 1977 Nov;15(11):929–938. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197711000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES