Doctors who interrupt their patients risk missing vital details in medical history
- 20.09.2016
- HannahBottomley
- Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion
The “Hello my name is” campaign was launched by Dr Kate Granger who sadly lost her battle with cancer to improve communication between doctors and their patients. The campaign seems to have taken off with a new pilot scheme being run by the NHS to teach medical staff key communication skills in an attempt to help them interact with their patients more effectively.
The scheme, as outlined in the recent article by The Telegraph, is aimed at encouraging medical professionals to form better bonds with their patients through effective communication in the hope that patients will be more likely to listen to and accept the advice being offered. The ultimate aim is that by encouraging patients to tackle things such as obesity and non-compliance with medication it will save the NHS money in the long run.
The article focused on a number of studies in relation to issues identified by both medical professionals and patients but the one study which really caught my eye found that the average doctor interrupted their patients 12 seconds after they began speaking.
It is the lack of obtaining a full and detailed history from the patient which may prevent the medical professional from effectively engaging with them and ultimately preventing a productive therapeutic relationship being formed. From my experience of dealing with catastrophic injuries associated with clinical negligence, I have found that in many cases one of the first criticisms is the failure by the medical professional to take a full and detailed history from the patient.
It may seem like a relatively straightforward concept but patients, as non-medically trained lay people, may not know what could be relevant or not to their condition and it is important they are given the opportunity to present all their concerns. If a patient is interrupted after only 12 seconds, I struggle to see how a full and detailed history could have been obtained. My concern is not just that there may not be a productive therapeutic relationship established but that something important may be missed resulting in significant injury.
I look forward to seeing whether or not this scheme gets rolled out to the whole of the UK and will await with interest the results of any updating studies focusing on the impact of effective communication.