User login
During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.
A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.
The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).
The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.
The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).
The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).
In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.
The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.
A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.
The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).
The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.
The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).
The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).
In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.
The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.
A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.
The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).
The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.
The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).
The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).
In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.
The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.