Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of exam-room computing on clinician-patient communication

A longitudinal qualitative study

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of exam-room computers on communication between clinicians and patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS: Longitudinal, qualitative study using video-tapes of regularly scheduled visits from 3 points in time: 1 month before, 1 month after, and 7 months after introduction of computers into the exam room.

SETTING: Primary care medical clinic in a large integrated delivery system.

PARTICIPANTS: Nine clinicians (6 physicians, 2 physician assistants, and 1 nurse practitioner) and 54 patients.

RESULTS: The introduction of computers into the exam room affected the visual, verbal, and postural connection between clinicians and patients. There were variations across the visits in the magnitude and direction of the computer’s effect. We identified 4 domains in which exam-room computing affected clinician-patient communication: visit organization, verbal and nonverbal behavior, computer navigation and mastery, and spatial organization of the exam room. We observed a range of facilitating and inhibiting effects on clinician-patient communication in all 4 domains. For 2 domains, visit organization and verbal and nonverbal behavior, facilitating and inhibiting behaviors observed prior to the introduction of the computer appeared to be amplified when exam-room computing occurred. Likewise, exam-room computing involving navigation and mastery skills and spatial organization of the exam-room created communication challenges and opportunities. In all 4 domains, there was little change observed in exam-room computing behaviors from the point of introduction to 7-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Effective use of computers in the outpatient exam room may be dependent upon clinicians’ baseline skills that are carried forward and are amplified, positively or negatively, in their effects on clinician-patient communication. Computer use behaviors do not appear to change much over the first 7 months. Administrators and educators interested in improving exam-room computer use by clinicians need to better understand clinician skills and previous work habits associated with electronic medical records. More study of the effects of new technologies on the clinical relationship is also needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Powell J. NHS national programme for information technology: changes must involve clinicians and show the value to patient care. BMJ. 2004;328:1200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bush G.W. Executive Order: Incentives for the Use of Health Information Technology and Establishing the Position of the National Health Information Technology Coordinator. 2004.

  3. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review [see comment]. JAMA. 1998;280:1339–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Engel G. How Much Longer Must Medicine’s Science be Bounded by a Seventeenth Century World View? The Task of Medicine, Dialogue at Wickenburg. Menlo Park: The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation; 1988:113–36.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physicianpatient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Selby JV, Quesenberry CP Jr. Effect of physician and patient gender concordance on patient satisfaction and preventive care practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:761–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, Rogers W, Ware JE. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style. Results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care. 1995;33:1176–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo JJ, Gonzales JJ, et al. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 1999;282:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284:1021–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Suchman AL, Matthews DA. What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:125–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, Galajda J, Meredith L, Sangster M. Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control. 1999;3:25–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Glass RM. The patient-physician relationship. JAMA focuses on the center of medicine. JAMA. 1996;275:147–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Inui TS, Carter WB. Problems and prospects for health services research on provider-patient communication. Med Care. 1985;23:521–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Frankel RM, Stein T, Krupat E. The Four Habits Approach to Effective Clinical Communication. Oakland, CA: Kaiser Permanente; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In Smith JA, R. Harré, Van Langenhove L, eds. Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage; 1995, 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Devers KJ. How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5, Part 2):1153–88.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheflen A. Communicational Structure: Analysis of a Psychotherapy Transaction. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen-Cole S.A. The Medical Interview: The Three Function Approach. St. Louis: Mosby-Yearbook; 1991:21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frankel RM, Quill T. The Biopsychosocial Approach: Past, Present, Future. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keller VF, Carroll JG. A new model for physician-patient communication. Patient Educ Couns. 1994;23:131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tresolini CPF. Health professions education and relationship-centered care. Report of the Pew-Fetzer task force on advancing psychosocial health education; 1994.

  22. Stewart MB, Jb. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. Thousands Oak, Calif: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wasserman RC, Inui TS, Barriatua RD, Carter WB, Lippincott P. Pediatric clinicians’ support for parents makes a difference: an outcome-based analysis of clinician-parent interaction. Pediatrics. 1984;74:1047–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lester GW, Smith SG. Listening and talking to patients? A remedy for malpractice suits. West J Med. 1993;158:268–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. DiMatteo MR, Taranta A, Friedman HS, Prince LM. Predicting patient satisfaction from physicians’ nonverbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18:376–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. unknown. Eye contact and patient satisfaction, unknown; 2004.

  28. Milmoe S, Rosenthal R, Blane HT, Chafetz ME, Wolf I. The doctor’s voice: postdictor of successful referral of alcoholic patients. J Abnorm Psychol. 1967;72:78–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Frankel PhD.

Additional information

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

See editorial by Jadad, p. 784

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frankel, R., Altschuler, A., George, S. et al. Effects of exam-room computing on clinician-patient communication. J Gen Intern Med 20, 677–682 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0163.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0163.x

Key words

Navigation