Skip to main content

A Reluctance to Disagree with Recommendations

I remember when my son was about 2 years old he developed a very minor case of acute otitis media. I took him to his doctor who recommended and subsequently prescribed a course of antibiotics. I asked a couple questions but I really didn’t push her on my reluctance to go along with her recommendation for antibiotics. I left the office visit nodding that I’d give the antibiotics to him, but when I got to the car I placed the prescription in my glove box, where I’m pretty sure it sits a year and a half later.

I’m still struck to this day on my apparent unwillingness to voice my disagreement with this physician’s recommendation.  She is someone who I very much respect and trust, and maybe that is why I failed to openly disagree with her.  However, there must be more than this, as I’m more than willing to give my opinion to my colleagues at work whom I also respect and trust. What the heck happened here?

One interesting line of evidence of what may be occurring here comes from a research letter published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine titled Communicating With Physicians About Medical Decisions: A Reluctance to Disagree.

The authors of the study conducted an online survey of 1340 patients who were over 40 years old and who had visited a physician within the last year. They had them answer questions based on a hypothetical scenario about treatment of heart disease.  The main outcomes looked at answers to three behaviors key to shared decision making: (1) asking questions, (2) discussing preferences, and (3) voicing disagreement, when relevant.

Similar to previous studies, there was a spectrum of preferences in how patients wanted to make health care decisions. The majority, 70% preferred shared decision-making with their physician. Only a minority (11%) wanting to be mostly responsible for treatment decision making, and the rest (19%) felt that the physician should be mostly responsible.

Despite being a highly educated group, and despite that nearly all patients could envision asking questions (93.1%) and discussing preferences (94.0%) with physicians, the vast majority would not voice disagreement with their physician if their preferences conflicted with physician recommendations (86%).


Why do patients like myself not voice their disagreement with their physicians? Patients in this study said their reluctance stemmed from:

  • Their worry about “being seen as a difficult patient”
  • That disagreeing “might interfere with getting the care that they wanted.”
  • And that disagreeing would “damage their relationship with their physician.”


For me, I think I just didn't want to be the difficult patient (or at least the pain in the neck doctor dad who thinks he knows everything).   The real problem here is that the physician taking care of my son never actually knew that I wasn't going to follow her recommendations.  My apparent assent to her recommendation had no relation to my adherence to her recommendation.  I do think though, if I was just asked one question - "Do you have any concerns about the antibiotics" - I would have been honest with her about how I felt.


by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comments

I had the same thing happen to me, but with a CAT scan for my 6 year old - as we were in the office waiting for it, I googled what the raditation and effects are, and was horrified. I was very reluctant to say no, but I finally did, and it worked out fine in the end, but it was very difficult to do.
Helen Chen, MD said…
I've been there too, though in my case, I actually (humorously, I hope) voiced my disagreement and then in the end did what the MD recommended, mostly because her also humorous response was to point out that I would be "ruining her HEDIS/quality scores" if I failed to get the (not entirely evidence-based) preventive service she recommended.

This is an important problem for all of us to grapple with--especially since this could have future downstream unintended consquences. For example, the pediatrician could say, "well the child tolerated that [antibiotic] in the past so I will feel safe about prescribing it again in the future." In addition, since most of the people in the referenced study were between 40-60, I wonder if this is an even larger issue for people in their 80's, 90's and beyond, who may have additional generational issues about disagreeing with the doctor.

In our practice, we require that physicians 'check a box' on the h/p form that states the "the patient has been educated and agrees to the plan documented above." This was done because of regulatory requirements that we document patient education and involvement in his/her plan of care. However, I often wonder what it means to obtain "agreement". We all know that silence does not equal consent, but I think we all secretly hope that it does. Perhaps in addition to teach back, I should be asking patients what their concerns are about what we planned/discussed today.

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …