Article Summary
The article highlights the preliminary use of intervention tools for patients to motivate their participation during a clinical encounter. More often than not, patients fail to extract essential information they need at their various clinical meetings. According to the authors, the inability to give patients the data they need may increment enthusiastic misery. Further, it may hamper any further advantages from dynamic patient contribution in the experience and care cycles, such as treatment adherence. There are three factors, including the physician, mode of information transfer, and patient needs, limiting the quality of information transferences (Faber, Dulmen, & Kinnersley, 2016). For instance, some doctors usually use complicated terminologies or fail to communicate with the patients effectively.
In other cases, selected modes of transfers such as spoken or written information, and patients’ health anxieties may deprive effective clinical intervention. The authors consider using pre-encounter tools as the most effective way of motivating patient participation in a clinical encounter. They propose that physicians need to incorporate patient data needs and pose relevant inquiries (Faber, Dulmen, & Kinnersley, 2016). They also need to consider the sum and substance of data they need and finding balance in communicating their data needs.
Clinical judgment and patient outcome
The article plays a significant role in improving clinical judgment and systemic thinking on improving patient outcomes. The report underpins that the encounter process through pre-encounter tools is critical in engaging the patient during the clinical encounter. It enhances the agility of asking more questions and attracting patients to speak their mental stresses. These are the primary outcome of pre-encounter tools. Similarly, posing inquiries typically isn’t an objective but a holistic way of building a relationship between the doctor and the patient. Therefore, doctors ought to be ready for patients to list preliminary questions that are significant in the clinical encounter. Secondarily, the result of the experience continues as before; aside from understanding fulfillment, pre-experience instruments don’t reliably influence patients’ information or their degree of nervousness.