Dataset Information

How much time do low-income patients and primary care physicians actually spend discussing pain? A direct observation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We know little about how much time low-income patients and physicians spend discussing pain during primary care visits.

Objective

To measure the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions at a primary care clinic serving mostly low-income black patients; to investigate variables associated with these discussions.

Design

We measured the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions using video-recorded primary care visits; we used multiple regression to evaluate associations between discussions and patient self-report variables.

Participants

A total of 133 patients presenting to a primary care clinic for any reason; 17 family medicine residents.

Main measures

Independent variables were pain severity, health status, physical function, chief complaint, and whether the patient and physician had met previously. Dependent variables were presence of pain-related discussions and percent of total visit time spent discussing pain.

Key results

Sixty-nine percent of visits included pain-related discussions with a mean duration of 5.9 min (34% of total visit time). Increasing pain severity [OR 1.69, 95% CI (1.18, 2.41)] and pain-related chief complaints [OR 4.10, 95% CI (1.39, 12.12)] were positively associated with the probability of discussing pain. When patients discussed pain, they spent 4.5% more [95% CI (0.60, 8.37)] total visit time discussing pain for every one-point increase in pain severity. Better physical function was negatively associated with the probability of discussing pain [OR 0.65, 95% CI (0.48, 0.86)], but positively associated with the percent of total visit time spent discussing pain [3% increase; 95% CI (0.32, 5.75)] for every one-point increase in physical function). Patients and physicians who had met previously spent 11% less [95% CI (-21.65, -0.55)] total visit time discussing pain. Pain severity was positively associated with time spent discussing pain only when patients and physicians had not met previously.

Conclusions

Pain-related discussions comprise a substantial proportion of time during primary care visits. Future research should evaluate the relationship between time spent discussing pain and the quality of primary care pain management.

SUBMITTER: Henry SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3378744 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How much time do low-income patients and primary care physicians actually spend discussing pain? A direct observation study.

Henry Stephen G SG Eggly Susan S

Journal of general internal medicine 20120110 7

<h4>Background</h4>We know little about how much time low-income patients and physicians spend discussing pain during primary care visits.<h4>Objective</h4>To measure the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions at a primary care clinic serving mostly low-income black patients; to investigate variables associated with these discussions.<h4>Design</h4>We measured the frequency and duration of pain-related discussions using video-recorded primary care visits; we used multiple regression ...[more]

PMID: 22231657

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication-related problems are an important cause of emergency department (ED) visits, and medication errors are reported in up to 60% of ED patients. Procedures such as medication reconciliation and medication review can identify and prevent medication-related problems and medication errors. However, this work is often time-consuming. In EDs without pharmacists, medication reconciliation is the physician's responsibility, in addition to the primary assignments of examining and diagnosing the patient. The aim of this study was to identify how much time ED physicians spend on medication-related tasks when no pharmacists are present in the EDs.MethodsAn observational time-and-motion study of physicians in three EDs in Northern Norway was conducted using Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to collect and time-stamp data. Observations were conducted in predefined two-hour observation sessions with a 1:1 relationship between observer and participant, during Monday to Friday between 8 am and 8 pm, from November 2020 to October 2021.ResultsIn total, 386 h of observations were collected during 225 observation sessions. A total of 8.7% of the physicians' work time was spent on medication-related tasks, of which most time was spent on oral communication about medications with other physicians (3.0%) and medication-related documentation (3.2%). Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on medication reconciliation tasks, which includes retrieving medication-related information directly from the patient, reading/retrieving written medication-related information, and medication-related documentation. Physicians spent 85.6% of the observed time on non-medication-related clinical or administrative tasks, and the remaining time was spent standby or moving between tasks.ConclusionIn three Norwegian EDs, physicians spent 8.7% of their work time on medication-related tasks, and 85.6% on other clinical or administrative tasks. Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on tasks related to medication reconciliation. We worry that patient safety related tasks in the EDs receive little attention. Allocating dedicated resources like pharmacists to contribute with medication-related tasks could benefit both physicians and patients.

Project description:Background/aimsFinancial compensation for research participation is a major focus of ethical concern regarding human subject recruitment. Phase I trials are sometimes considered to be a lucrative source of income for healthy volunteers, encouraging some people to become "professional guinea pigs." Yet, little is known about how much these clinical trials actually pay and how much healthy volunteers earn from them.MethodsAs part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of healthy volunteers, we required participants to complete clinical trial diaries, or surveys that captured detailed information about screening and enrollment in Phase I trials. Over a 3-year period, participants provided information online or via telephone about each clinical trial for which they screened (e.g. the clinic name, the study's therapeutic area, the length of the trial, the number of nights spent in the clinic, and the study compensation), and whether they qualified for trial inclusion. Clinical trial diaries generated data about whether participants continued to screen for and enroll in clinical trials and how much money they earned from their participation.Results131 participants routinely completed clinical trial diaries or confirmed that they had not screened for any new clinical trials. Together, these participants screened for 1001 clinical trials at 73 research facilities during a 3-year period. Overall, the median clinical trial compensation was US$3070 (range = US$150-US$13,000). Participants seeking new healthy volunteer trials tended to screen for three studies per year, participate in one or two studies, and earn roughly US$4000 annually. Participants who were unemployed earned the most income from clinical trials compared to those with full-time or part-time jobs, and those individuals whom we label "occupational" participants because of their persistent pursuit of clinical trials earned more than people who screened occasionally. Notably, the median annual trial compensation was well below US$10,000 for all employment groups, and most occupational healthy volunteers also earned less than US$10,000 each year. The 10% of participants who earned the most had a median annual income of US$18,885 from clinical trials, and there was significant volatility in these individuals' earnings from year to year.ConclusionDespite the perception that Phase I enrollment can generate significant earnings, it was exceedingly rare for anyone in this study to make more than US$20,000 in a single year, and unusual to earn even between US$10,000 and US$20,000. From an ethics perspective, individual trials might appear to unduly induce enrollment by offering significant sums of money, but given our findings, the larger problem for low-income participants may be the unrealistic perception that clinical trials alone could be a way of earning a living.

Dataset Information

How much time do low-income patients and primary care physicians actually spend discussing pain? A direct observation study.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

How much time do low-income patients and primary care physicians actually spend discussing pain? A direct observation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets