UC DAVIS (US)—It’s possible for clinicians to turn down requests for inappropriate treatment and still address the patient’s concerns and preserve the physician-patient relationship.
“Physicians face a dilemma when their patients request an inappropriate treatment,” says Debora Paterniti, associate professor of internal medicine and sociology at the the University of California, Davis. She is lead author of the study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
“On one hand, physicians want to avoid a course of action they believe is unwarranted. On the other, they want to maintain the trusting relationship they have with their patient.
“Our study found that physicians rely on three types of strategies to deny patient requests, and that the strategy that seems to suit patients best is one that includes and specifically addresses patients’ viewpoints and motivations.
“We believe that physicians, equipped with a more nuanced understanding of physician-patient communication about how to say ‘no,’ may consider these strategies for denying requests from different types of patients.”
For example, patients request medication during approximately one in 10 office visits. While most requests are granted, medications prescribed at the behest of patients may not always represent physicians’ first choice of treatment, particularly if the requests are commercially motivated, as for example, by direct-to-consumer advertising.
Nevertheless, physicians are cautious when rejecting patient requests for services because, as some studies have indicated, unfulfilled patient requests are associated with reduced patient satisfaction. Previous research also has shown that physicians may choose to fulfill inappropriate requests when they believe their patients expect the request to be granted.
Paterniti and her colleagues analyzed data from a randomized trial on the behavior of primary care clinicians in response to requests for antidepressant medication. Standardized patients who were trained to request antidepressants made 199 initial visits to primary care offices in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Rochester, N.Y., in 2003 and 2004, complaining of “feeling tired” and also of either wrist or low back pain.
Transcripts of audio-recorded visits in which requests were denied were analyzed and assessed for strategies used to communicate denial.
Of the 199 visits in which antidepressants were requested, clinicians did not prescribe them in 88 (44 percent), and 84 of those were included in the analysis. Clinicians used six primary approaches to deny the requests.
In 53 of 84 visits (63 percent), physicians used one of three strategies that emphasized the patient’s perspective.
These approaches included exploring the context of the request by asking questions about where the patient heard about the drug and why they thought it would be helpful; recommending that the patient seek the advice of a counselor or mental health specialist; or offering an alternative diagnosis to major depression.
In 26 visits (31 percent), clinicians took biomedical approaches, either prescribing sleep aids instead of antidepressants or ordering a diagnostic workup to rule out conditions such as thyroid disease and anemia. In five visits (6 percent), clinicians simply denied the request outright.
The standardized patients reported significantly higher visit satisfaction when the physician explored their reasons for a request, and acknowledged the patients’ interpretations and perspectives when denying their request for antidepressants.
“These strategies provide physicians with alternatives for saying no to patient requests for care that is perceived to be inappropriate, offering physicians an opportunity to select approaches that fit their own style of communication, the preferences of particular patients or changing organizational climates,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
UC Davis news: www.news.ucdavis.edu/