Back to the future: Can conversation analysis be used to judge physicians' malpractice history?

Richard Frankel, Wendy Levinson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In its monograph Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine asserted that 44,000 to 98,000 lives are lost every year due to avoidable medical errors, more than 80% of which involved breakdowns in communication. Medical malpractice claims also involve errors that cause harm, including death. Reasons for malpractice claims have been investigated using variables such as age, race, country of origin, and gender, none of which are predictive. One promising area that has not systematically been studied is the role of face-to-face communication in malpractice claims. To better understand this phenomenon, we tape-recorded 125 doctors (divided equally between surgeons and primary care practitioners), each with 10 consecutive patients. Half of these doctors had been sued at least twice, while the rest had never been sued. We then did a qualitative analysis based on a single taped encounter per doctor using conversation analysis (CA), in order to try to identify which doctors had claims or no-claims histories. While we were able to identify two out of every three no-claims primary care doctors, we were much less successful in identifying those with claims. Surprisingly, in the surgeon group, predictions based on CA were worse than by chance probability. We discuss the implications of our findings for the field of outcome-based communication analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)27-39
Number of pages13
JournalCommunication & medicine
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Malpractice
History
Communication
Physicians
Primary Health Care
Medical Errors
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) Health and Medicine Division
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Conversation analysis
  • Doctor-patient communication
  • Malpractice
  • Outcome-based research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Back to the future : Can conversation analysis be used to judge physicians' malpractice history? / Frankel, Richard; Levinson, Wendy.

In: Communication & medicine, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2014, p. 27-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3c9851075c094f699b196f9e8f8bbdb7,
title = "Back to the future: Can conversation analysis be used to judge physicians' malpractice history?",
abstract = "In its monograph Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine asserted that 44,000 to 98,000 lives are lost every year due to avoidable medical errors, more than 80{\%} of which involved breakdowns in communication. Medical malpractice claims also involve errors that cause harm, including death. Reasons for malpractice claims have been investigated using variables such as age, race, country of origin, and gender, none of which are predictive. One promising area that has not systematically been studied is the role of face-to-face communication in malpractice claims. To better understand this phenomenon, we tape-recorded 125 doctors (divided equally between surgeons and primary care practitioners), each with 10 consecutive patients. Half of these doctors had been sued at least twice, while the rest had never been sued. We then did a qualitative analysis based on a single taped encounter per doctor using conversation analysis (CA), in order to try to identify which doctors had claims or no-claims histories. While we were able to identify two out of every three no-claims primary care doctors, we were much less successful in identifying those with claims. Surprisingly, in the surgeon group, predictions based on CA were worse than by chance probability. We discuss the implications of our findings for the field of outcome-based communication analysis.",
keywords = "Conversation analysis, Doctor-patient communication, Malpractice, Outcome-based research",
author = "Richard Frankel and Wendy Levinson",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1558/cam.v11i1.20265",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "27--39",
journal = "Communication and Medicine",
issn = "1612-1783",
publisher = "Equinox Publishing Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Back to the future

T2 - Can conversation analysis be used to judge physicians' malpractice history?

AU - Frankel, Richard

AU - Levinson, Wendy

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - In its monograph Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine asserted that 44,000 to 98,000 lives are lost every year due to avoidable medical errors, more than 80% of which involved breakdowns in communication. Medical malpractice claims also involve errors that cause harm, including death. Reasons for malpractice claims have been investigated using variables such as age, race, country of origin, and gender, none of which are predictive. One promising area that has not systematically been studied is the role of face-to-face communication in malpractice claims. To better understand this phenomenon, we tape-recorded 125 doctors (divided equally between surgeons and primary care practitioners), each with 10 consecutive patients. Half of these doctors had been sued at least twice, while the rest had never been sued. We then did a qualitative analysis based on a single taped encounter per doctor using conversation analysis (CA), in order to try to identify which doctors had claims or no-claims histories. While we were able to identify two out of every three no-claims primary care doctors, we were much less successful in identifying those with claims. Surprisingly, in the surgeon group, predictions based on CA were worse than by chance probability. We discuss the implications of our findings for the field of outcome-based communication analysis.

AB - In its monograph Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine asserted that 44,000 to 98,000 lives are lost every year due to avoidable medical errors, more than 80% of which involved breakdowns in communication. Medical malpractice claims also involve errors that cause harm, including death. Reasons for malpractice claims have been investigated using variables such as age, race, country of origin, and gender, none of which are predictive. One promising area that has not systematically been studied is the role of face-to-face communication in malpractice claims. To better understand this phenomenon, we tape-recorded 125 doctors (divided equally between surgeons and primary care practitioners), each with 10 consecutive patients. Half of these doctors had been sued at least twice, while the rest had never been sued. We then did a qualitative analysis based on a single taped encounter per doctor using conversation analysis (CA), in order to try to identify which doctors had claims or no-claims histories. While we were able to identify two out of every three no-claims primary care doctors, we were much less successful in identifying those with claims. Surprisingly, in the surgeon group, predictions based on CA were worse than by chance probability. We discuss the implications of our findings for the field of outcome-based communication analysis.

KW - Conversation analysis

KW - Doctor-patient communication

KW - Malpractice

KW - Outcome-based research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928192037&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928192037&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1558/cam.v11i1.20265

DO - 10.1558/cam.v11i1.20265

M3 - Article

C2 - 26402962

AN - SCOPUS:84928192037

VL - 11

SP - 27

EP - 39

JO - Communication and Medicine

JF - Communication and Medicine

SN - 1612-1783

IS - 1

ER -