Advertisement

Use of the Roter interaction analysis system to analyze veterinarian-client-patient communication in companion animal practice

Jane R. ShawDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1.
present address is College of Veterinary Medicine, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766.

Search for other papers by Jane R. Shaw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Cindy L. AdamsDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1.

Search for other papers by Cindy L. Adams in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MSW, PhD
,
Brenda N. BonnettDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1.

Search for other papers by Brenda N. Bonnett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
Susan LarsonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Search for other papers by Susan Larson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Debra L. RoterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Search for other papers by Debra L. Roter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DrPH

Abstract

Objective—To identify specific components of veterinarian- client-patient communication during clinical appointments in companion animal practice.

Design—Cross-sectional descriptive study.

Sample Population—A random sample of 50 companion animal practitioners in southern Ontario and a convenience sample of 300 clients and their pets.

Procedure—For each practitioner, 6 clinical appointments (3 wellness appointments and 3 appointments related to a health problem) were videotaped, and the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) was used to analyze the resulting 300 videotapes. Statements made during each appointment were classified by means of a communication framework reflecting the 4 essential tasks of the appointment (ie, data gathering, education and counseling, relationship building, and activation and partnership).

Results—57% of the veterinarians contacted (50/87) and 99% of the clients contacted agreed to participate in the study. Mean duration of the appointments was 13 minutes. Typically, veterinarians contributed 62% of the total conversation and clients contributed 38%. Fifty-four percent of the veterinarian interaction was with the client, and 8% was with the pet. Data gathering constituted 9% of the veterinarian-to-client communication and was primarily accomplished through closed-ended questioning; 48% of veterinarian-to-client communication involved client education and counseling, 30% involved relationship building, and 7% involved activation and partnership (the remaining 6% constituted orientation).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggest that the RIAS was a reliable method of assessing the structure, process, and content of veterinarianclient-patient communication and that some veterinarians do not use all the tools needed for effective communication. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:222–229)

Abstract

Objective—To identify specific components of veterinarian- client-patient communication during clinical appointments in companion animal practice.

Design—Cross-sectional descriptive study.

Sample Population—A random sample of 50 companion animal practitioners in southern Ontario and a convenience sample of 300 clients and their pets.

Procedure—For each practitioner, 6 clinical appointments (3 wellness appointments and 3 appointments related to a health problem) were videotaped, and the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) was used to analyze the resulting 300 videotapes. Statements made during each appointment were classified by means of a communication framework reflecting the 4 essential tasks of the appointment (ie, data gathering, education and counseling, relationship building, and activation and partnership).

Results—57% of the veterinarians contacted (50/87) and 99% of the clients contacted agreed to participate in the study. Mean duration of the appointments was 13 minutes. Typically, veterinarians contributed 62% of the total conversation and clients contributed 38%. Fifty-four percent of the veterinarian interaction was with the client, and 8% was with the pet. Data gathering constituted 9% of the veterinarian-to-client communication and was primarily accomplished through closed-ended questioning; 48% of veterinarian-to-client communication involved client education and counseling, 30% involved relationship building, and 7% involved activation and partnership (the remaining 6% constituted orientation).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggest that the RIAS was a reliable method of assessing the structure, process, and content of veterinarianclient-patient communication and that some veterinarians do not use all the tools needed for effective communication. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:222–229)