Patient-physician agreement on the content of CHD prevention discussions

Background: Little is known about agreement between patients and physicians on content and outcomes of clinical discussions. A common perception of content and outcomes may be desirable to optimize decision making and clinical care.

Objective: To determine patient-physician agreement on content and outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention discussions.

Design: Cross-sectional survey nested within a randomized CHD prevention study.

Setting and participants: University internal medicine clinic; 24 physicians and 157 patients.

Methods: Following one clinic visit, we surveyed patients and physicians on discussion content, decision making and final decisions about CHD prevention. For comparison, we audio-recorded, transcribed and coded 20 patient-physician visits. We calculated percent agreement between patient/physician reports, patient/transcription reports and physician/transcription reports. We calculated Cohen's kappas to compare patient/physician perspectives.

Results: Patients and physicians agreed on whether CHD was discussed in 130 visits (83%; kappa = 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.70). When discussions occurred, they agreed about discussion content (pros versus cons) in 53% of visits (kappa = 0.15; 95% CI -0.01-0.30) and physicians' recommendations in 73% (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.66). Patients and physicians agreed on final decisions to take medication in 78% (kappa = 0.58; 95% CI 0.45-0.71) and change lifestyle in 69% (kappa = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.53). They agreed less often, 43% (kappa = 0.13; 95% CI -0.11-0.37) about degree of involvement in decision making. Audio-recorded results were similar, but showed very low agreement between transcripts and patients' and physicians' self-report on discussion content and decision making.

Conclusions: Disagreements about clinical discussions and decision making may be common. Future work is needed to determine: how widespread such agreements are; whether they impact clinical outcomes; and the relative importance of the subjective experience versus objective steps of shared decision making.