Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleTheory

Unhurried Conversations in Health Care Are More Important Than Ever: Identifying Key Communication Practices for Careful and Kind Care

Dawna I. Ballard, Dron M. Mandhana, Yohanna Tesfai, Cristian Soto Jacome, Sarah B. Johnson, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Nataly R. Espinoza Suarez, Sandra Algarin Perneth, Lillian Su and Victor M. Montori
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2024, 22 (6) 533-538; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3177
Dawna I. Ballard
1Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dron M. Mandhana
2Department of Communication, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yohanna Tesfai
1Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cristian Soto Jacome
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
4Norwalk Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nuvance Health, Norwalk, Connecticut
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah B. Johnson
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
MSCS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael R. Gionfriddo
5Division of Pharmaceutical, Administrative, and Social Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
PhD, PharmD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nataly R. Espinoza Suarez
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
6VITAM - Centre for Sustainable Health Research, Integrated University Health and Social Services Center of Capitale-Nationale, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
7Faculty of Nursing, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra Algarin Perneth
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
8Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lillian Su
9Division of Cardiovascular Intensive Care Medicine, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victor M. Montori
3Knowledge & Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: montori.victor@mayo.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Unhurried conversations are necessary for careful and kind care that is responsive and responsible to both patients and clinicians. Adequate conceptual development is an important first step in being able to assess and measure this important domain of quality of care. In this article, we expand on a preliminary model to identify the key microlevel communication practices that support an unhurried conversation, defined as an ongoing, mutual accomplishment between patient and clinician that proceeds through a range of verbal and nonverbal communication practices wherein one or more participants (mutually) regulate the sequence, spacing (temporal and spatial), and speed of interaction to make themselves available to the other and remove or suspend distractions from the environment in order to improve care. We draw from the rich, qualitative descriptions found in earlier work that point to specific, observable practices in clinical encounters and identified empirical and theoretical work across a range of disciplines to expand our understanding of these practices. Ultimately, we identify and elaborate on 10 observable indicators of patient-clinician communication: engaging in shared turn taking, establishing rapport through discussion of off-task topics, pausing to allow the other ample time to speak, moderating the pace of spoken language, avoiding conversational interruptions, minimizing external interruptions, triaging topics as needed to create adequate time, expressing emotions, encouraging participation through inviting questions, and displaying open body language. These indicators work together to cocreate unhurried conversations.

Key words:
  • office visits
  • doctor-patient relationship
  • communication
  • time pressure
  • time perception compassion

INTRODUCTION

Unhurried conversations1 are a fulcrum around which effective health care operates, as they lead to careful and kind care that is responsive and responsible to both patients and clinicians.2 Montori and colleagues1 conceptualize unhurried conversations as a communicative practice cocreated by patients and clinicians and propose a model of its determinants and consequences. Our purpose here is to expand on their preliminary model to identify the key microlevel communication practices that support unhurried conversations.

IDENTIFYING KEY COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

We define an unhurried conversation as an ongoing, mutual accomplishment between patient and clinician that proceeds through a range of verbal and nonverbal communication practices wherein one or more participants (mutually) regulate the sequence, spacing (temporal and spatial), and speed of interaction to make themselves available to the other and remove or suspend distractions from the environment in order to improve care. Building on the rich, heuristic descriptions of unhurried conversations observed by Montori and colleagues1 and relevant literature from communication, time studies, and shared decision making, our multidisciplinary team engaged in an iterative process to identify communication practices that influence the unhurriedness of consultations. This process involved a comprehensive literature review and 6 months of weekly deliberations.

We conducted broad searches on Google Scholar and PubMed for patient-clinician conversations and leveraged systematic reviews in medical and health communication disciplines to identify relevant studies, especially those incorporating terms related to perceptions of consultation time (eg, “interruptions,” “pauses,” “time”). Over 6 months, our research team critically discussed and evaluated this multidisciplinary literature, including in relation to clinicians’ lived experiences. This process led to the identification of 10 observable practices that, together, allow clinicians and patients to fully participate in cocreating an unhurried conversation: (1) engaging in shared turn-taking, (2) establishing rapport through discussion of off-task topics, (3) pausing to allow the other ample time to speak, (4) moderating the pace of spoken language, (5) avoiding conversational interruptions, (6) minimizing external interruptions, (7) triaging topics to create adequate time, (8) expressing emotions, (9) using inviting questions to encourage participation, and (10) displaying open body language.

It is crucial to note that although each of these practices has the potential to contribute to unhurried conversations, no single practice is adequate on its own. It is the collective engagement in all of these behaviors that shapes unhurriedness, and overemphasizing any specific behavior may not produce the experience of unhurriedness; for example, on its own, triaging is not a solution and can pose its own challenges. This is because each behavior has its own advantages and disadvantages. Rather, our goal is to highlight how, collectively, the 10 communication practices foster an environment conducive to unhurried conversations.

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES FOR UNHURRIED CONVERSATIONS

Shared Turn Taking

The issue of shared turn taking emerges in the literature at the intersection of rhythm and participation and is important to coconstructing an unhurried conversation. Montori2 describes it as a dance, where the ratio of turn taking between the clinician and patient is negotiated so that both participants have equal speaking opportunities. Shared turn taking can be facilitated by using open-ended questions (elaborated later) and is coconstructed by participants.

Although turn taking is mutually negotiated, patients may rely on the clinician to extend a verbal or nonverbal invitation to participate in the conversation; as one focus group participant explained: “I mean, if my doctor had said to me, how do you feel about that … that would open up the possibility to say … is there anything else that can be done? … But because that was not in the dialogue, I could not initiate something like that.”3 Patients also fear clinicians may view them as difficult if they assert themselves or ask too many questions. This issue occurs in a context where clinicians may be concerned that allowing patients to speak more will extend the visit with long monologues.3 Nonetheless, a simulation study has suggested that patients actually tend to speak for a shorter time but offer useful contributions when allowed to share.4 The same study also found both clinician and patient speak more as shared turn-taking behaviors increase.

Discussion of Off-Task Topics

Discussing topics unrelated to the medical problem during clinical encounters, called small talk, also supports an unhurried conversation. It is a communication strategy that helps to establish rapport, enhancing the depth of conversation.5 Talking about light-hearted, off-task topics (eg, weather, hobbies) can help establish a natural conversational rhythm. Humor, used in about 6 out of 10 clinical encounters,6 often accompanies this small talk. In unhurried conversations, this strategy allows participants to get to know each other outside of clinical roles.

Off-task talk can help reduce the experience of hurry, avoid depersonalization, and increase patient satisfaction.7 Talking about non–health-related topics such as weekend plans or weather can make patients feel seen as individuals and not simply as patients.7 In one study, mere seconds spent discussing off-task topics helped establish rapport during the history-taking phase of oncology consultations.8 Such interactions reduce the experience of hurry and increase patient satisfaction with the length of the visit.

Use of Pauses

Unhurried conversations involve pauses and moments of silence. Initiated through a break in the conversation, pauses may naturally emerge in response to relevant conversational or cognitive demands.9 For example, clinicians may be silent as they consider the best answer to a medical question. Additionally, in unhurried conversations, the patient is allowed to stop and reflect on medical news they receive. The collaborative flow of conversation allows participants to pause without being interrupted. Using pauses may help reduce the pace of the conversation and contribute to a sense of unhurriedness during consultations.

An observational study found that pauses created by the use of an electronic health record (EHR) in clinical settings were welcomed by patients as an opportunity to engage with the clinician: “…[electronic medical record] use appeared to slow down the medical interview, which perhaps gave patients more time to talk and ask questions about their illness.”10(p112) These pauses facilitated patient participation. When clinicians pause to use the EHR, often turning away from the patient, it may reduce the performance anxiety patients sometimes feel due to perceived status differences between themselves and the clinician.10 This reduction in pressure may help them regain a measure of comfort and personal agency that leads to more participation.

Although EHR use facilitated pauses and patient participation in this study,10 it is important to acknowledge that it can also negatively impact patient-clinician communication if multitasking limits eye contact and divides attention.11 To mitigate these effects and use the EHR constructively to introduce pauses, clinicians can turn toward patients while typing, maintain eye contact, and share their screens.11,12 The strategic use of pauses, whether through EHR or other means, can enhance patient engagement and support unhurried conversations.

Moderation of Pace

Pacing refers to the number of words uttered per unit of time. Although unhurried conversations generally have a slower pace than hurried conversations, conversational pacing is rarely uniform. For instance, an unhurried conversation may begin with a patient excitedly sharing a positive health report and then gradually slowing the pace to discuss the implications. An unhurried pace therefore refers to a rhythm of conversation that allows both participants to speak without having to constrain their rhythm choices (to accelerate or decelerate) for reasons extraneous to care.

Classic communication research shows that speech rate, or speaking tempo, can influence perceptions of trustworthiness, honesty, and likeability.13 Additionally, during conversations, speech rate convergence can promote mutual intelligibility and reduce uncertainty, particularly in initial conversations between strangers.14,15 When speakers reciprocate each other’s speech rate, it increases cooperation and comfort between them,16 reflecting Montori’s dance metaphor.2

Clinician-patient interactions are shaped by the same social norms. Clinicians who match the speech rate of their patients may reduce their dominance within the conversation, leading to a more reciprocal interaction.17 Rather than a simple pleasantry or stylistic preference, reciprocity leads to better care. Patients reciprocate and become more comfortable during the visit when clinicians speak at a similar speed and volume as the patient. If clinicians speak at a faster tempo and simply recite medical information, patients may try to match their pace, hindering the patients’ ability to ask clarifying questions or share additional concerns.18

Avoidance of Conversational Interruptions

Conversational interruptions prevent participants from completing their turn and disrupt the flow of conversation. This occurs when either the clinician or patient cuts off the other midsentence to change the topic. Research estimates that clinicians interrupt patients 77% of the time during their opening statements19,20 and these interruptions occur after a median of only 11 seconds.21 In contrast, in unhurried conversations, participants cocreate a shared rhythm that involves fewer conversational interruptions. Notably, not all interruptions are disruptive: highly trained clinicians interrupt to elicit more information while maintaining the conversational rhythm.22 We thus emphasize conversational as a modifier of this type of interruption: by conversational interruption, we mean an utterance that disregards what the other is saying rather than one related to an interest in exploring it further.

A collaborative interested exchange supports unhurried conversations. In particular, cooperative interruptions are used to express support and understanding or to obtain more information through follow-up questions.23 If well-timed, cooperative interruptions can improve communication quality between clinician and patient by aligning their agendas.23 For example, when medical residents interrupt in a cooperative manner, patients report greater confidence in the residents’ abilities and expertise compared with when residents interrupt to disrupt the flow of the conversation.24 Because unhurried conversations are mutually negotiated, acknowledging patient interruptions also matters. When clinicians ignore patient interruptions, patients can leave feeling unimportant, resulting in a weakened relationship with their physician.25 Instead, when patients interrupt clinicians to ask a question, the interruption can be used to promote a partnership-style relationship.25 Unhurried conversations are thus shaped by an agreement to welcome each other’s interruptions to ensure a productive conversation flow.

Minimization of External Interruptions

External interruptions refer to a person (eg, family members or staff entering the room unexpectedly) or an external event (eg, a technology problem or pop-up alert) that requires attention and disrupts the flow of the visit. Unhurried conversations are characterized by fewer, less severe external interruptions. In one study of outpatient surgical consultations, external interruptions occurred in 24% of 182 appointments.26 These interruptions included telephone calls (22%), surgeons leaving the room (52%), and another person entering the room (26%). Although they do not lower patient satisfaction, external interruptions increase clinician stress levels and decrease clinician satisfaction with the visit.27,28 This may be because external interruptions are often followed by more questions26 and increased consultation length.28 Ultimately, external interruptions interfere with the quality of communication and create an unfavorable environment for unhurried conversations.29

Triage of Topics

One approach to support an unhurried conversation is to delay addressing nonurgent topics to give more time to health concerns that require immediate attention. This approach is similar to triaging in emergency medical settings where the demand for services exceeds staff capacity. Beyond the emergency department, clinicians can adopt this approach when a demand-capacity mismatch arises. When faced with myriad topics relevant to a patient’s care that compete for time and attention, clinicians can manage this competition by allocating more time to major topics and limiting the time spent on less central medical issues.30 This strategy can keep the visit length about the same30 and allow participants to maintain an unhurried rhythm of conversation. In contrast, addressing more topics with less time devoted to each topic may decrease key measures of the quality of care.31

We note that simply delaying topics can require more return visits and create a backlog of appointments.32 A solution to this problem is clinicians taking the initiative to invite patients to jointly prioritize multiple topics, with follow-up on lower-priority issues managed by another care team member through telemedicine or a telephone call.33,34 Additionally, asking agenda-setting questions such as “Do you have some other concerns you would like to discuss today?” early in the conversation allows clinicians to address more topics without leading to a longer visit or a proliferation of new topics.35 Ultimately, although delaying topics may be used strategically to enable an unhurried conversation, several other reasons support use of this practice (including managing emotional reactions),9 so topic triage is only one part of a larger, holistic strategy in the shared accomplishment of an unhurried conversation.

Use of Open-Ended Questions

Questions that encourage participants to freely share information, elaborate answers, and increase knowledge are vital to an unhurried conversation. Patients and their caregivers often want to participate in their own health care decisions yet may require encouragement from physicians to feel invited to ask questions regarding procedures, treatments, or general health concerns.36 A physician’s asking of clarifying questions and encouraging patients to ask questions is therefore associated with improved health outcomes.37,38 Patient satisfaction also increases when they can ask questions, describe problems from their viewpoint, and present concerns regarding treatments.39

Although one might assume this approach lengthens a visit, research suggests that uninterrupted patients often provide brief responses, typically less than 30 seconds, even to open-ended questions asked at the start of the consultation.21,40,41 Additionally, physicians can use the time spent accessing the EHR during history taking to ask patients open-ended questions about psychosocial or informal topics (eg, hobbies, weather),5,8 allowing them to develop rapport with the patients and potentially facilitating an experience of unhurriedness.

Expression of Emotion

Unhurried conversations are characterized by having the opportunity to passively and actively express emotions. Montori and colleagues1 highlight the importance of being emotionally available to ensure full participation in an unhurried conversation. Research shows that clinicians’ sharing of emotions with their patients builds rapport and enhances communication. For instance, eliciting questions about psychosocial topics increases patient responsiveness and expression of latent emotional health concerns.42 Expressing empathy also reduces a patient’s psychological distress without increasing demands on busy physicians.43

To manage the demands of a busy practice, physicians can conduct more focused conversations while also displaying emotionality to ensure patients feel heard and supported.44 Through a warm demeanor and simple gestures such as compliments and small talk, they can positively impact a patient’s mood and willingness to share health information.44 Moreover, these changes do not necessarily take more time, as more information can be exchanged when patients feel comfortable expressing their concerns.44 Together, these findings suggest that integrating emotional expression into visits enhances care and patient satisfaction.

Use of Open Body Language

Unhurried conversations are supported through open body language, which reflects embodied listening. These nonverbal communication behaviors help establish clinician presence, “a purposeful practice of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand and connect with patients,” that supports the mutual accomplishment of unhurried conversations and may help participants express emotions.45 It is characterized by behaviors such as leaning forward, head nodding, sitting close together, and smiling.46-48

Open body language predicts patient satisfaction, patient participation, and clinician-patient collaboration.49,50 These positive outcomes may be attributed to patients being more inclined to respond and speak freely when they feel clinicians direct their gaze and body toward them.51,52 For instance, although we described previously how the pause created by EHR use can facilitate unhurried conversations,10 clinicians’ body language during this pause is also important for interaction. The appearance of being distracted through multitasking may cause concern. An analysis of videotaped rheumatologist–patient consultations revealed that patients use various gestures and linguistic strategies to redirect clinicians’ gaze and attention.51 Body language can thus be used to invite and support unhurried conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the practices we elaborate here, research on “time work” suggests unhurriedness is at the heart of what drives effective health care.53 On the basis of participant observation and patient interviews about what constitutes a “good” clinical relationship, the strategic, agentic use of time emerges as central: a good relationship is one in which the clinician makes time for the interaction. As one patient explained,

It’s very important that you feel the doctor has time for you—and that you feel that you’re allowed to be worried or scared so that he doesn’t go like: “argh … I’ve looked at this a hundred times,” but that there’s room for you. The thing about not feeling that they have to hurry or that they are in a hurry. That they have time to figure out what to do about this, so that you are not seen as a patient but as a human being.53(p151)

Thus, the question throughout extant literature is not about whether (un)hurriedness matters: an entire body of literature suggests that it does. What had remained unsynthesized across disparate fields—what we have identified in this article—are the interrelated practices that clinicians and patients rely upon to coconstruct unhurried conversations.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Read or post commentaries in response to this article.

  • Funding support: This research project did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Received for publication March 14, 2024.
  • Revision received July 29, 2024.
  • Accepted for publication July 30, 2024.
  • © 2024 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Montori V,
    2. Hargraves I,
    3. Breslin M, et al.
    Careful and kind care requires unhurried conversations. NEJM Catal. 2019; 5(5). doi:10.7759/cureus.7048
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Montori VM.
    Why We Revolt: A Patient Revolution for Careful and Kind Care. Rosetta Books; 2020.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Frosch DL,
    2. May SG,
    3. Rendle KA,
    4. Tietbohl C,
    5. Elwyn G.
    Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31(5): 1030-1038. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Roter DL,
    2. Larson SM,
    3. Beach MC,
    4. Cooper LA.
    Interactive and evaluative correlates of dialogue sequence: a simulation study applying the RIAS to turn taking structures. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 71(1): 26-33. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.10.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. White S,
    2. Stubbe M.
    “D’yuh like porridge”: social talk as a relational, interactional, and clinical component of surgical consultations. Qualitative Health Communication. 2022; 1(1): 4-25. doi:10.7146/qhc.v1i1.125968
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Phillips KA,
    2. Singh Ospina N,
    3. Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, et al.
    Humor during clinical practice: analysis of recorded clinical encounters. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018; 31(2): 270-278. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2018.02.170313
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gross DA,
    2. Zyzanski SJ,
    3. Borawski EA,
    4. Cebul RD,
    5. Stange KC.
    Patient satisfaction with time spent with their physician. J Fam Pract. 1998; 47(2): 133-137. PMID 9722801
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Eide H,
    2. Graugaard P,
    3. Holgersen K,
    4. Finset A.
    Physician communication in different phases of a consultation at an oncology outpatient clinic related to patient satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 51(3): 259-266. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00225-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Eli K,
    2. Huxley CJ,
    3. Hawkes CA,
    4. Perkins GD,
    5. Slowther AM,
    6. Griffiths F.
    Why are some ReSPECT conversations left incomplete? A qualitative case study analysis. Resusc Plus. 2022; 10: 100255. doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100255
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. McGrath JM,
    2. Arar NH,
    3. Pugh JA.
    The influence of electronic medical record usage on nonverbal communication in the medical interview. Health Informatics J. 2007; 13(2): 105-118. doi:10.1177/1460458207076466
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Shachak A,
    2. Reis S.
    The impact of electronic medical records on patient-doctor communication during consultation: a narrative literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009; 15(4): 641-649. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01065.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Shaarani I,
    2. Taleb R,
    3. Antoun J.
    Effect of computer use on physician-patient communication using a validated instrument: patient perspective. Int J Med Inform. 2017; 108: 152-157. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.10.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Boltz MG.
    Temporal dimensions of conversational interactions: the role of response latencies and pauses in social impression formation. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2005; 24(2): 103-108. doi:10.1177/0261927X05275734
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bourhis RY,
    2. Roth S,
    3. MacQueen G.
    Communication in the hospital setting: a survey of medical and everyday language use amongst patients, nurses and doctors. Soc Sci Med. 1989; 28(4): 339-346. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(89)90035-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Berger CR,
    2. Calabrese RJ.
    Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Hum Commun Res. 1974; 1(2): 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Manson JH,
    2. Bryant GA,
    3. Gervais MM,
    4. Kline MA.
    Convergence of speech rate in conversation predicts cooperation. Evol Hum Behav. 2013; 34(6): 419-426. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Ishikawa H,
    2. Hashimoto H,
    3. Kinoshita M,
    4. Fujimori S,
    5. Shimizu T,
    6. Yano E.
    Evaluating medical students’ non-verbal communication during the objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ. 2006; 40(12): 1180-1187. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02628.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Rowland-Morin PA,
    2. Carroll JG.
    Verbal communication skills and patient satisfaction. A study of doctor-patient interviews. Eval Health Prof. 1990; 13(2): 168-185. doi:10.1177/016327879001300202
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Beckman HB,
    2. Frankel RM.
    The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Ann Intern Med. 1984; 101(5): 692-696. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Dyche L,
    2. Swiderski D.
    The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20(3): 267-270. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40266.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Singh Ospina N,
    2. Phillips KA,
    3. Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, et al.
    Eliciting the patient’s agenda- secondary analysis of recorded clinical encounters. J Gen Intern Med. 2019; 34(1): 36-40. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4540-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Marvel MK,
    2. Doherty WJ,
    3. Weiner E.
    Medical interviewing by exemplary family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1998; 47(5): 343-348. PMID 9834768
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Plug I,
    2. van Dulmen S,
    3. Stommel W,
    4. Olde Hartman TC,
    5. Das E.
    Physicians’ and patients’ interruptions in clinical practice: a quantitative analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2022; 20(5): 423-429. doi:10.1370/afm.2846
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Li HZ,
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Yum YO,
    4. Lundgren J,
    5. Pahal JS.
    Interruption and patient satisfaction in resident-patient consultations. Health Educ (Lond). 2008; 108(5): 411-427. doi:10.1108/09654280810900026
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Realini T,
    2. Kalet A,
    3. Sparling J.
    Interruption in the medical interaction. Arch Fam Med. 1995; 4(12): 1028-1033. doi:10.1001/archfami.4.12.1028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Ting YY,
    2. Reid JL,
    3. Treloar E, et al.
    Do you have any questions? An analysis of question asking patterns in surgical outpatient consultations. ANZ J Surg. 2022; 92(6): 1388-1393. doi:10.1111/ans.17642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Dearden A,
    2. Smithers M,
    3. Thapar A.
    Interruptions during general practice consultations—the patients’ view. Fam Pract. 1996; 13(2): 166-169. doi:10.1093/fampra/13.2.166
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Santos CN,
    2. Pedrosa BF,
    3. Martins M, et al.
    Interruptions during general practice consultations: negative impact on physicians, and patients’ indifference. Fam Pract. 2024; 41(4): 494-500. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmac129
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rhoades DR,
    2. McFarland KF,
    3. Finch WH,
    4. Johnson AO.
    Speaking and interruptions during primary care office visits. Fam Med. 2001; 33(7): 528-532. PMID 11456245
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Tai-Seale M,
    2. McGuire TG,
    3. Zhang W.
    Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Serv Res. 2007; 42(5): 1871-1894. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00689.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Abbo ED,
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Zelder M,
    4. Huang ES.
    The increasing number of clinical items addressed during the time of adult primary care visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(12): 2058-2065. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0805-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Tai-Seale M,
    2. McGuire T.
    Time is up: increasing shadow price of time in primary-care office visits. Health Econ. 2012; 21(4): 457-476. doi:10.1002/hec.1726
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Brock DM,
    2. Mauksch LB,
    3. Witteborn S,
    4. Hummel J,
    5. Nagasawa P,
    6. Robins LS.
    Effectiveness of intensive physician training in upfront agenda setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26(11): 1317-1323. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1773-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Pelak M,
    2. Pettit AR,
    3. Terwiesch C,
    4. Gutierrez JC,
    5. Marcus SC.
    Rethinking primary care visits: how much can be eliminated, delegated or performed outside of the face-to-face visit? J Eval Clin Pract. 2015; 21(4): 591-596. doi:10.1111/jep.12341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Heritage J,
    2. Robinson JD,
    3. Elliott MN,
    4. Beckett M,
    5. Wilkes M.
    Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22(10): 1429-1433. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Visser LNC,
    2. Kunneman M,
    3. Murugesu L, et al.
    Clinician-patient communication during the diagnostic workup: The ABIDE project. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2019; 11: 520-528. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2019.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Stewart MA.
    What is a successful doctor-patient interview? A study of interactions and outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 1984; 19(2): 167-175. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(84)90284-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Bensing JM,
    2. Verheul W,
    3. Jansen J,
    4. Langewitz WA.
    Looking for trouble: the added value of sequence analysis in finding evidence for the role of physicians in patients’ disclosure of cues and concerns. Med Care. 2010; 48(7): 583-588. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d567a5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Jenkins L,
    2. Cosgrove J,
    3. Ekberg K,
    4. Kheder A,
    5. Sokhi D,
    6. Reuber M.
    A brief conversation analytic communication intervention can change history-taking in the seizure clinic. Epilepsy Behav. 2015; 52(Pt A): 62-67. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.08.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rabinowitz I,
    2. Luzzati R,
    3. Tamir A,
    4. Reis S.
    Length of patient’s monologue, rate of completion, and relation to other components of the clinical encounter: observational intervention study in primary care. BMJ. 2004; 328(7438): 501-502. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.501
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Duke P,
    2. Frankel RM,
    3. Reis S.
    How to integrate the electronic health record and patient-centered communication into the medical visit: a skills-based approach. Teach Learn Med. 2013; 25(4): 358-365. doi:10.1080/10401334.2013.827981
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Levinson W,
    2. Gorawara-Bhat R,
    3. Lamb J.
    A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000; 284(8): 1021-1027. doi:10.1001/jama.284.8.102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Fujimori M,
    2. Shirai Y,
    3. Asai M,
    4. Kubota K,
    5. Katsumata N,
    6. Uchitomi Y.
    Effect of communication skills training program for oncologists based on patient preferences for communication when receiving bad news: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(20): 2166-2172. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.51.2756
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Crawford P,
    2. Brown B.
    Fast healthcare: brief communication, traps and opportunities. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 82(1): 3-10. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Zulman DM,
    2. Haverfield MC,
    3. Shaw JG, et al.
    Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter [published correction appears in JAMA. 2020; 323(11): 1098]. JAMA. 2020; 323(1): 70-81. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Harrigan JA,
    2. Oxman TE,
    3. Rosenthal R.
    Rapport expressed through nonverbal behavior. J Nonverbal Behav. 1985; 9(2): 95-110. doi:10.1007/BF00987141
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.
    1. Duggan P,
    2. Parrott L.
    Physicians’ nonverbal rapport building and patients’ talk about the subjective component of illness. Hum Commun Res. 2011; 27(2): 299-311. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00783.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Pawlikowska T,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Griffiths F,
    4. van Dalen J,
    5. van der Vleuten C.
    Verbal and non-verbal behavior of doctors and patients in primary care consultations - how this relates to patient enablement. Patient Educ Couns. 2012; 86(1): 70-76. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Griffith CH III.,
    2. Wilson JF,
    3. Langer S,
    4. Haist SA.
    House staff nonverbal communication skills and standardized patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(3): 170-174. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10506.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Robinson, JD.
    Getting down to business: talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Hum Commun Res. 1998; 25(1): 97-123. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00438.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    1. Booth A,
    2. Lecouteur A,
    3. Chur-Hansen A.
    The impact of the desktop computer on rheumatologist-patient consultations. Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 32(3): 391-393. doi:10.1007/s10067-012-2140-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Brugel S,
    2. Postma-Nilsenová M,
    3. Tates K.
    The link between perception of clinical empathy and nonverbal behavior: The effect of a doctor’s gaze and body orientation. Patient Educ Couns. 2015; 98(10): 1260-1265. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Assing Hvidt E.
    “Time work”: An analysis of temporal experiences and agentic practices in the “good” doctor-patient relationship in general practice. Health (London). 2024; 28(1): 144-160. doi:10.1177/13634593221116504
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 22 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 22 (6)
Vol. 22, Issue 6
November/December 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • Plain-Language Summaries of the Issue
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Unhurried Conversations in Health Care Are More Important Than Ever: Identifying Key Communication Practices for Careful and Kind Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Unhurried Conversations in Health Care Are More Important Than Ever: Identifying Key Communication Practices for Careful and Kind Care
Dawna I. Ballard, Dron M. Mandhana, Yohanna Tesfai, Cristian Soto Jacome, Sarah B. Johnson, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Nataly R. Espinoza Suarez, Sandra Algarin Perneth, Lillian Su, Victor M. Montori
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2024, 22 (6) 533-538; DOI: 10.1370/afm.3177

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Unhurried Conversations in Health Care Are More Important Than Ever: Identifying Key Communication Practices for Careful and Kind Care
Dawna I. Ballard, Dron M. Mandhana, Yohanna Tesfai, Cristian Soto Jacome, Sarah B. Johnson, Michael R. Gionfriddo, Nataly R. Espinoza Suarez, Sandra Algarin Perneth, Lillian Su, Victor M. Montori
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2024, 22 (6) 533-538; DOI: 10.1370/afm.3177
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • IDENTIFYING KEY COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
    • COMMUNICATION PRACTICES FOR UNHURRIED CONVERSATIONS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Refining Vendor-Defined Measures to Accurately Quantify EHR Workload Outside Time Scheduled With Patients
  • Curricular Interventions in Medical Schools: Maximizing Community Engagement Through Communities of Practice
Show more Theory

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Core values of primary care:
    • Personalized care
    • Relationship
  • Other topics:
    • Communication / decision making

Keywords

  • office visits
  • doctor-patient relationship
  • communication
  • time pressure
  • time perception compassion

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine