Highland Hospital

BACKGROUND: Despite notable technical advances in therapy for malignant gliomas during the past decade, improved patient survival has not been clearly documented, suggesting that pretreatment prognostic factors influence outcome more than minor modifications in therapy. Age, performance status, and tumor histopathology have been identified as the pretreatment variables most predictive of survival outcome. However, an analysis of the association of survival with both pretreatment characteristics and treatment-related variables is necessary to assure reliable evaluation of new approaches for treatment of malignant glioma. PURPOSE: This study of malignant glioma patients used a non-parametric statistical technique to examine the associations of both pretreatment patient and tumor characteristics and treatment-related variables with survival duration. This technique was used to identify subgroups with survival rates sufficiently different to create improvements in the design and stratification of clinical trials. METHODS: We used a recursive partitioning technique to analyze survival in 1578 patients entered in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group malignant glioma trials from 1974 to 1989 that used several radiation therapy (RT) regimens with and without chemotherapy or a radiation sensitizer. This approach creates a regression tree according to prognostic variables that classifies patients into homogeneous subsets by survival. Twenty-six pretreatment characteristics and six treatment-related variables were analyzed. RESULTS: The years). Patients younger than 50 years old were categorized by histology (astrocytomas with anaplastic or atypical foci [AAF] versus glioblastoma multiforme [GBM]) and subsequently by normal or abnormal mental status for AAF patients and by performance status for those with GBM. For patients aged 50 years or older, performance status was the most important variable, with normal or abnormal mental status creating the only significant split in the poorer performance status group. Treatment-related variables produced a subgroup showing significant differences only for better performance status GBM patients over age 50 (by extent of surgery and RT dose). Median survival times were 4.7-58.6 months for the 12 subgroups resulting from this analysis, which ranged in size from 32 to 256 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This approach permits examination of the interaction between prognostic variables not possible with other forms of multivariate analysis. IMPLICATIONS: The recursive partitioning technique can be employed to refine the stratification and design of malignant glioma trials.

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,”(1) published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.(2)

OBJECTIVE: To formulate an empirically derived model of empathic communication in medical interviews by describing the specific behaviors and patterns of interaction associated with verbal expressions of emotion. DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study of verbal exchanges using 11 transcripts and 12 videotapes of primary care office visits to a total of 21 physicians. SETTING: An urban health maintenence organization (HMO), an urban university-based general medicine clinic, and an urban community hospital general medicine clinic. ANALYTIC METHOD: Individual review of transcripts by each research team member to identify instances of expressed or implied emotional themes and to observe the physicians' responses. Individual ratings were compared in group discussions to achieve consensus about the classifications. Similar consensus-based classification was used for review of videotapes. RESULTS: We observed that patients seldom verbalize their emotions directly and spontaneously, tending to offer clues instead. If invited to elaborate, patients may then express the emotional concern directly, and the physician may respond with an accurate and explicit acknowledgment. In most of the interviews, the physicians allowed both clues and direct expressions of affect to pass without acknowledgment, returning instead to the preceding topic, usually the diagnostic exploration of symptoms. With emotional expression so terminated, some patients attempted to raise the topic again, sometimes repeatedly and with escalating intensity. We noted a parallel dynamic for encounters in which patients sought praise. We summarized the full interactional sequence in a simple descriptive model. CONCLUSIONS: This empirically derived model of empathic communication has practical implications for clinicians and students who want to improve their communication and relationship skills. Based on our observations, the basic empathic skills seem to be recognizing when emotions may be present but not directly expressed, inviting exploration of these unexpressed feelings, and effectively acknowledging these feelings so the patient feels understood. The frequent lack of acknowledgment by physicians of both direct and indirect expressions of affect poses a threat to the patient-physician relationship and warrants further study.

BACKGROUND: The current literature does not provide an answer to the question, "What prompts patients to sue doctors or hospitals?" Not all adverse outcomes result in suits, and threatened suits do not always involve adverse outcomes. The exploration of other factors has been hampered by the lack of a methodology to contact plaintiffs and elicit their views about their experience in delivered health care. This study employed the transcripts of discovery depositions of plaintiffs as a source of insight into the issues that prompted individuals to file a malpractice claim. METHODS: This study is a descriptive series review of a convenience sample of 45 plaintiffs' depositions selected randomly from 67 depositions made available from settled malpractice suits filed between 1985 and 1987 against a large metropolitan medical center. Information extracted from each deposition included the alleged injury; the presence of the question, "Why are you suing?" and, if present, the answer; the presence of problematic relationship issues between providers and patients and/or families and, if present, the discourse supporting it; the presence of the question, "Did a health professional suggest maloccurrence?" and, if yes, who. Using a process of consensual validation, relationship issues were organized into groups of more generalized categories suggested by the data. Answers to the questions, "Why are you suing?" and "Who suggested maloccurrence?" are described. RESULTS: Problematic relationship issues were identified in 71% of the depositions with an interrater reliability of 93.3%. Four themes emerged from the descriptive review of the 3787 pages of transcript: deserting the patient (32%), devaluing patient and/or family views (29%), delivering information poorly (26%), and failing to understand the patient and/or family perspective (13%). Thirty-one plaintiffs were asked if health professionals suggested maloccurrence. Fifty-four percent (n = 17) responded affirmatively. The postoutcome-consulting specialist was named in 71% (n = 12) of the depositions in which maloccurrence was allegedly suggested. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the decision to litigate was often associated with a perceived lack of caring and/or collaboration in the delivery of health care. The issues identified included perceived unavailability, discounting patient and/or family concerns, poor delivery of information, and lack of understanding the patient and/or family perspective. Particular attention should be paid to the postadverse-event consultant-patient interaction.

CONTEXT: Previous research indicates physicians frequently choose a\npatient problem to explore before determining the patient's full spectrum of\nconcerns. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which experienced family\nphysicians in various practice settings elicit the agenda of concerns patients\nbring to the office. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey using linguistic\nanalysis of a convenience sample of 264 patient-physician interviews. SETTING\nAND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care offices of 29 board-certified family physicians\npracticing in rural Washington (n = 1; 3%), semirural Colorado (n = 20; 69%),\nand urban settings in the United States and Canada (n = 8; 27%). Nine\nparticipants had fellowship training in communication skills and family\ncounseling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-physician verbal interactions,\nincluding physician solicitations of patient concerns, rate of completion of\npatient responses, length of time for patient responses, and frequency of\nlate-arising patient concerns. RESULTS: Physicians solicited patient concerns\nin 199 interviews (75.4%). Patients' initial statements of concerns were\ncompleted in 74 interviews (28.0%). Physicians redirected the patient's\nopening statement after a mean of 23.1 seconds. Patients allowed to complete\ntheir statement of concerns used only 6 seconds more on average than those who\nwere redirected before completion of concerns. Late-arising concerns were more\ncommon when physicians did not solicit patient concerns during the interview\n(34.9% vs 14.9%). Fellowship-trained physicians were more likely to solicit\npatient concerns and allow patients to complete their initial statement of\nconcerns (44% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often redirect patients'\ninitial descriptions of their concerns. Once redirected, the descriptions are\nrarely completed. Consequences of incomplete initial descriptions include\nlate-arising concerns and missed opportunities to gather potentially important\npatient data. Soliciting the patient's agenda takes little time and can\nimprove interview efficiency and yield increased data.

The authors propose reinvigorating and extending the traditional social history beyond its narrow range of risk behaviors to enable clinicians to address negative health outcomes imposed by social determinants of health. In this Perspective, they outline a novel, practical medical vulnerability assessment questionnaire that operationalizes for clinical practice the social science concept of "structural vulnerability." A structural vulnerability assessment tool designed to highlight the pathways through which specific local hierarchies and broader sets of power relationships exacerbate individual patients' health problems is presented to help clinicians identify patients likely to benefit from additional multidisciplinary health and social services. To illustrate how the tool could be implemented in time- and resource-limited settings (e.g., emergency department), the authors contrast two cases of structurally vulnerable patients with differing outcomes. Operationalizing structural vulnerability in clinical practice and introducing it in medical education can help health care practitioners think more clearly, critically, and practically about the ways social structures make people sick. Use of the assessment tool could promote "structural competency," a potential new medical education priority, to improve understanding of how social conditions and practical logistics undermine the capacities of patients to access health care, adhere to treatment, and modify lifestyles successfully. Adoption of a structural vulnerability framework in health care could also justify the mobilization of resources inside and outside clinical settings to improve a patient's immediate access to care and long-term health outcomes. Ultimately, the concept may orient health care providers toward policy leadership to reduce health disparities and foster health equity.

Certain motions at the syndesmosis of the ankle have been demonstrated. As dorsiflexion of the ankle takes place, the malleoli separate in fairly regular increments, the greatest distance being approximately 1.5 millimeters. The articular surfaces of the malleoli remain closely applied to the sides of the talus throughout the range of ankle motion. The tibia rotates a few degrees medially about its long axis on the talus and the syndesmosis opens anteriorly. There is a relative lateral rotation of the fibula with respect to the tibia. Other motions at the syndesmosis, such as forward or backward displacement or translation of the fibula on its long axis, may occur but they have not yet been demonstrated convincingly. The syndesmosis permits this flexibility because of the elasticity of its ligaments. The elasticity of these ligaments allows the intermalleolar distance to change and facilitates tibial and fibular rotation which is essential to normal motion at the ankle joint. These motions contribute to the general springiness or elasticity of the system. Progressive sectioning of the ligaments of the syndesmosis and the interosseous membrane leads to increasing backward mobility and increasing lateral rotation of the lateral malleolus. Loss of these structures, however, produces no significant widening of the medial or lateral clear spaces or increase in the intermalleolar distance. In order to produce widening of the mortise either the medial or the lateral group of ligaments, as well as the ligaments of the syndesmosis and the interosseous membrane, must be divided. The most common fracture at the ankle is the spiral oblique fracture or lateralrotation fracture of the fibular malleolus. This is frequently associated with an increase in the medial clear space. When this increase is moderate, partial diastasis is present and there is injury to the deltoid ligament. Marked increase in the medial clear space indicates a complete tear of the deltoid ligament including both deep and superficial portions. Inability to reduce the medial clear space may mean that the deltoid ligament must be removed from the medial joint space and repaired.

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and other ventilator-associated events (VAEs) and to improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults, children, and neonates. This document updates "Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals," published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Triage of mass casualties in situations in which patients must remain on-scene for prolonged periods of time, such as after a catastrophic earthquake, differs from traditional triage. Often there are multiple scenes (sectors), and the infrastructure is damaged. Available medical resources are limited, and the time to definitive care is uncertain. Early evacuation is not possible, and local initial responders cannot expect significant outside assistance for at least 49-72 hours. Current triage systems are based either on a shorter time to definitive care or on a longer time to initial triage. The Medical Disaster Response (MDR) project deals with the scenario in which specially trained, local health-care providers evaluate patients immediately after the event, but cannot evacuate patients to definitive care. For this type of scenario, a dynamic triage methodology was developed that permits the triage process to evolve over hours or even days, thereby maximizing patient survival and resulting in a more efficient use of resources. This MDR system incorporates a modified version of "Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment" (START) that substitutes radial pulse for capillary refill, coupled with a system of secondary triage termed, "Secondary Assessment of Victim Endpoint" (SAVE). The SAVE triage was developed to direct limited resources to the subgroup of patients expected to benefit most from their use. The SAVE assesses survivability of patients with various injuries and, on the basis of trauma statistics, uses this information to describe the relationship between expected benefits and resources consumed. Because early transport to an intact medical system is unavailable, this information guides treatment priorities in the field to a level beyond the scope of the START methodology. Pre-existing disease and age are factored into the triage decisions. An elderly patient with burns to 70% of body surface area is unsalvageable under austere field conditions and would require the use of significant medical resources-both personnel and equipment-and would be triaged to an "expectant area." Conversely, a young adult with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 who requires only airway maintenance would use few resources and would have a reasonable chance for survival with the interventions available in the field, and would be triaged to a "treatment" area. The START and SAVE triage techniques are used in situations in which triage is dynamic, occurs over many hours to days, and only limited, austere, field, advanced life support equipment is readily available. The MDR-SAVE methodology is the first systematic attempt to use triage as a tool to maximize patient benefit in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic disaster.

During the past 20 years, natural disasters have claimed more than 3 million lives worldwide, affected at least 800 million people, and resulted in property damage exceeding $50 billion.1 The recent earthquake of magnitude 7.2 in Kobe, Japan, left more than 5000 people dead. In the United States, the great earthquake along the New Madrid fault of the Mississippi Valley in 1812 is said to have rung church bells in Boston and caused the Mississippi River to flow backward for three days.2,3 If a magnitude 8.3 earthquake were to take place along the San Andreas fault, it is estimated . . .

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

OBJECTIVES: The authors developed an "off-the-shelf" source of health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores for cost-effectiveness analysts unable to collect primary data. METHODS: The authors derived and conducted preliminary validation on a set of health-related quality of life scores for chronic conditions using nationally representative data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Healthy People 2000 Years of Healthy Life measure developed to monitor the health (longevity and health-related quality of life) of Americans during this decade. The measure comprises two domains, role function and self-rated health, and is scaled from 0 (death) to 1 (best health state). Health-related quality of life scores for chronic conditions were calculated using the Years of Healthy Life scores associated with chronic conditions reported in the 1987-1992 National Health Interview Survey. Preliminary validation was examined by comparing the health-related quality of life scores with those obtained in two other studies. RESULTS: Tables provide health-related quality of life scores for persons with and without conditions. The scores had reasonable face validity, ranging from 0.87 for allergic rhinitis to 0.27 for hemiplegia. Correlations of the health-related quality of life condition weight scores with those from two other studies were 0.78 and 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: These condition weights may prove useful to investigators conducting cost-effectiveness analyses using secondary data, where community ratings of health-related quality of life for chronic conditions are required. Use of a standard set of health-related quality of life weights gathered from a national sample can enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses. Improvements in national data collection techniques, with empirical gathering of preferences, will further strengthen this measure.

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute care hospitals to prioritize and implement strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated events (VAE), and non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) in adults, children, and neonates. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA), and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Hospital Association, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Medical Writings7 August 2001"Let Me See If I Have This Right …": Words That Help Build EmpathyJohn L. Coulehan, MD, Frederic W. Platt, MD, Barry Egener, MD, Richard Frankel, PhD, Chen-Tan Lin, MD, Beth Lown, MD, and William H. Salazar, MDJohn L. Coulehan, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, Frederic W. Platt, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, Barry Egener, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, Richard Frankel, PhDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, Chen-Tan Lin, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, Beth Lown, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902, and William H. Salazar, MDDr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-3-200108070-00022 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Consider these two physician–patient dialogues:1. Patient: You know, when you discover a lump in your breast, you kind of feel—well, kind of—(her speech tapers off; she looks down; tears form in her eyes).Dr. A: When did you actually discover the lump?Patient: (absently) I don't know. It's been a while.2. Patient: (same as above)Dr. B: That sounds frightening.Patient: Well, yeah, sort of.Dr. B: Sort of frightening?Patient: Yeah … and I guess I'm feeling like my life is over.Dr. B: I see. Worried and sad too.Patient: That's it, Doctor.Dr. A's patient ...References1. Konrad TR, Williams ES, Linzer M, McMurray J, Pathman DE, Gerrity M, et al . Measuring physician job satisfaction in a changing workplace and a challenging environment. SGIM Career Satisfaction Study Group. Society of General Internal Medicine. Med Care. 1999;37:1174-82. [PMID: 10549620] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Donelan K, Blendon RJ, Lundberg GD, Calkins DR, Newhouse JP, Leape LL, et al . The new medical marketplace: physicians' views. Health Aff Millwood. 1997;16:139-48. [PMID: 9314685] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Bates AS, Harris LE, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Dimensions and correlates of physician work satisfaction in a midwestern city. Med Care. 1998;36:610-7. [PMID: 9544600] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. McMurray JE, Williams E, Schwartz MD, Douglas J, Van Kirk J, Konrad TR, et al . Physician job satisfaction: developing a model using qualitative data. SGIM Career Satisfaction Study Group. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:711-4. [PMID: 9383141] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Beckman HB, Frankel RM. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:692-6. [PMID: 6486600] LinkGoogle Scholar6. Marvel MK, Epstein RM, Flowers K, Beckman HB. Soliciting the patient's agenda: have we improved? JAMA. 1999;281:283-7. [PMID: 9918487] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M, Stiles W, Inui TS. Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA. 1997;277:350-6. [PMID: 9002500] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. White J, Levinson W, Roter D. "Oh, by the way …": the closing moments of the medical visit. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:24-8. [PMID: 8133347] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Nightingale SD, Yarnold PR, Greenberg MS. Sympathy, empathy, and physician resource utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:420-3. [PMID: 1744756] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Levinson W, Stiles WB, Inui TS, Engle R. Physician frustration in communicating with patients. Med Care. 1993;31:285-95. [PMID: 8464246] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284:1021-7. [PMID: 10944650] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Suchman AL, Roter D, Green M, Lipkin M. Physician satisfaction with primary care office visits. Collaborative Study Group of the American Academy on Physician and Patient. Med Care. 1993;31:1083-92. [PMID: 8246638] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Cohen-Cole SA. The Medical Interview: The Three-Function Approach. St. Louis: Mosby; 1991. Google Scholar14. Coulehan JL, Block MR. The Medical Interview. Mastering Skills for Clinical Practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis; 2001. Google Scholar15. More ES. "Empathy" enters the profession of medicine.. In: More ES, Milligan MA, eds. The Empathic Practitioner. Empathy, Gender, and Medicine. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ Pr; 1994:19-39. Google Scholar16. Basch MF. Empathic understanding: a review of the concept and some theoretical considerations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1983;31:101-26. [PMID: 6681414] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Wispe L. History of the concept of empathy.. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer J, eds. Empathy and Its Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Pr; 1987:17-37. Google Scholar18. Book HE. Empathy: misconceptions and misuses in psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145:420-4. [PMID: 3348445] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Buie DH. Empathy: its nature and limitations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1981;29:281-307. [PMID: 7264177] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Wilmer HA. The doctor-patient relationship and the issues of pity, sympathy and empathy. Br J Med Psychol. 1968;41:243-8. [PMID: 5728595] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. Strayer J. Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy.. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer J, eds. Empathy and Its Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Pr; 1987:218-44. Google Scholar22. Brothers LA, Finch DM. Physiological evidence for an excitatory pathway from entorhinal cortex to amygdala in the rat. Brain Res. 1985;359:10-20. [PMID: 4075137] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Grattan LM, Eslinger PJ. Empirical study of empathy [Letter]. Am J Psychiatry. 1989;146:1521-2. [PMID: 2619825] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Katz RL. Empathy: Its Nature and Uses. New York: Free Press; 1963:26. Google Scholar25. Lief HI, Fox RC. Training for "detached concern" in medical students.. In: Lief HI, eds. The Psychological Basis of Medical Practice. New York: Harper & Row; 1963:12-35. Google Scholar26. Halpern J. Empathy: Using resonance emotions in the service of curiosity.. In: Spiro H, McCrea Curnen MG, Peschel E, St James D, eds. Empathy and the Practice of Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Pr; 1993:160-73. Google Scholar27. Wispe L. The distinction between sympathy and empathy: to call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;50:314-21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar28. Wilmer HA. The doctor-patient relationship and the issues of pity, sympathy and empathy. Br J Med Psychol. 1968;41:243-8. [PMID: 5728595] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. Bertakis KD, Roter D, Putnam SM. The relationship of physician medical interview style to patient satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1991;32:175-81. [PMID: 1990046] MedlineGoogle Scholar30. Roter D, Lipkin M, Korsgaard A. Sex differences in patients' and physicians' communication during primary care medical visits. Med Care. 1991;29:1083-93. [PMID: 1943269] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Levinson W, Roter D. Physicians' psychosocial beliefs correlate with their patient communication skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:375-9. [PMID: 7472685] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar32. Spiro H. What is empathy and can it be taught? Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:843-6. [PMID: 1482433] LinkGoogle Scholar33. Brock CD, Salinsky JV. Empathy: an essential skill for understanding the physician–patient relationship in clinical practice. Fam Med. 1993;25:245-8. [PMID: 8319851] MedlineGoogle Scholar34. Platt FW, Keller VF. Empathic communication: a teachable and learnable skill. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:222-6. [PMID: 8014729] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar35. Platt FW, Platt CM. Empathy: a miracle or nothing at all? Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 1998;5:30-3. Google Scholar36. Suchman AL, Markakis K, Beckman HB, Frankel R. A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA. 1997;277:678-82. [PMID: 9039890] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar37. Charon R. The narrative road to empathy.. In: Spiro H, McCrea Curnen MG, Peschel E, St James D, eds. Empathy and the Practice of Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Pr; 1993:147-59. Google Scholar38. Carson RA. Beyond respect to recognition and due regard.. In: Toombs SK, Barnard D, Carson RA, eds. Chronic Illness from Experience to Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ Pr; 1995:105-28. Google Scholar39. Hunter KM, Charon R, Coulehan JL. The study of literature in medical education. Acad Med. 1995;70:787-94. [PMID: 7669155] MedlineGoogle Scholar40. Novack DH, Suchman AL, Clark W, Epstein RM, Najberg E, Kaplan C. Calibrating the physician. Personal awareness and effective patient care. Working Group on Promoting Physician Personal Awareness, American Academy on Physician and Patient. JAMA. 1997;278:502-9. [PMID: 9256226] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar41. Coulehan JL. Tenderness and steadiness: emotions in medical practice. Lit Med. 1995;14:222-36. [PMID: 8558910] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar42. Connelly J. Being in the present moment: developing the capacity for mindfulness in medicine. Acad Med. 1999;74:420-4. [PMID: 10219225] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar43. Epstein RM. Mindful practice. JAMA. 1999;282:833-9. [PMID: 10478689] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar44. Miller SZ, Schmidt HJ. The habit of humanism: a framework for making humanistic care a reflexive clinical skill. Acad Med. 1999;74:800-3. [PMID: 10429589] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar45. Barrett-Lennard GT. The phases and focus of empathy. Br J Med Psychol. 1993;66 Pt 1 3-14. [PMID: 8485075] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar46. Gallop R, Lancee WJ, Garfinkel PE. The empathic process and its mediators. A heuristic model. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1990;178:649-54. [PMID: 2230750] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar47. Hall JA, Roter DL, Rand CS. Communication of affect between patient and physician. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:18-30. [PMID: 7240703] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar48. Larsen KM, Smith CK. Assessment of nonverbal communication in the patient–physician interview. J Fam Pract. 1981;12:481-8. [PMID: 7462949] MedlineGoogle Scholar49. Suchman AL, Matthews DA. What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:125-30. [PMID: 3276262] LinkGoogle Scholar50. Suchman AL. Control and Relation: Two Foundational Values and Their Consequences.. In: Suchman AL, Botelho RJ, Hinton-Walker P, eds. Partnerships in Healthcare: Transforming Relational Process. Rochester, NY: Univ of Rochester Pr; 1998. Google Scholar51. Branch WT, Malik TK. Using "windows of opportunities" in brief interviews to understand patients' concerns. JAMA. 1993;269:1667-8. [PMID: 8455300] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar52. Pinderhughes EB. Teaching empathy: ethnicity, race and power at the cross-cultural treatment interface. American Journal of Social Psychology. 1984;4:5-12. Google Scholar53. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness, and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Intern Med. 1978;88:251-8. [PMID: 626456] LinkGoogle Scholar54. Platt FW, Gaspar DL, Coulehan JL, Fox L, Adler AJ, Weston WW, et al . "Tell me about yourself": the patient-centered interview. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:1079-85. LinkGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Dr. Coulehan: State University of New York at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036Dr. Platt: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient; Portland, OR 97210Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital; Rochester, NY 14620Dr. Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Denver, CO 80222Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital; Cambridge, MA 02238Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia; Augusta, GA 30902Corresponding Author: John L. Coulehan, MD, Department of Preventive Medicine, HSC L3-086, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036; e-mail, [email protected]sunysb.edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Coulehan: Department of Preventive Medicine, HSC L3-086, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036.Drs. Platt and Lin: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO 80222.Dr. Egener: American Academy on Physician and Patient, Legacy Clinic Northwest, 1130 NW 22nd Avenue, Suite 220, Portland, OR 97210.Dr. Frankel: Highland Hospital, 1000 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620.Dr. Lown: Mount Auburn Hospital, 300 Mt. Auburn Street, Cambridge, MA 02238.Dr. Salazar: Medical College of Georgia, 1120 15th Street, HS2010, Augusta, GA 30902. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByHow does narrative medicine impact medical trainees' learning of professionalism? A qualitative studyEmpathy in nurse-patient interaction: a conversation analysisPhysician empathy according to physicians: A multi-specialty qualitative analysisCompassion FatigueDefining clinical empathy: a grounded theory approach from the perspective of healthcare workers and patients in a multicultural settingEmpathy in patient care: from 'Clinical Empathy' to 'Empathic Concern'Introducing reflective narrative for first-year medical students to promote empathy as an integral part of physiology curriculumSoft Skills: The Case for Compassionate Approaches or How Behavior Analysis Keeps Finding Its HeartBedside Manner 2020: An Inventory of Best PracticesClinical Empathy for the Surgical Patient: Lessons From W.H. Auden's Prose and PoetryCraving Empathy: Studying the Sustained Impact of Empathy Training on CliniciansThe Development of Empathy and Associated Factors during Medical Education: A Longitudinal StudyComparison of self-reported empathy levels among dental undergraduate students in Northern India: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional studyThe role of compassion in ethical frameworks and medical practiceSearching for the erosion of empathy in medical undergraduate students: a longitudinal studyImproving Interactions with Healthcare Robots: A Review of Communication Behaviours in Social and Healthcare ContextsDevelopment and piloting of a Situational Judgement Test for emotion-handling skills using the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES)The impact of therapeutic alliance in physical therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review of the literatureFeelings Behind a Face: a Medical Student Counseling Workshop in Facial Reconstructive SurgeryAchieving positive outcomes in complex cases: The Admiral Nurse Dementia Helpline (Innovative Practice)Psychological phenomena in the doctor- Elderly patient relationshipApplying a critical race lens to relationship‐centered care in pregnancy and childbirth: An antidote to structural racismHow do perceptions of verbal statements and nonverbal actions as empathetic differ by medical appointment context?Practices to Foster Physician Presence and Connection With Patients in the Clinical EncounterRapport, Empathy and Professional Identity: Some Challenges for International Medical Graduates Speaking English as a Second or Foreign LanguageUnder what circumstances can immigrant patients and healthcare professionals co-produce health? - an interpretive scoping reviewClinical sympathy: the important role of affectivity in clinical practiceEmpathy in computer-mediated interactions: A conceptual framework for research and clinical practice.Psychotherapist's empathic responses to client's troubles telling/feelings talk in psychotherapy: A conversation analysisHow does medical education affect empathy and compassion in medical students? A meta-ethnography: BEME Guide No. 57Empathy in psychotherapy: Using conversation analysis to explore the therapists' empathic interaction with clientsThe Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial's Standard of Care Control Condition: Rationale and Description of a Patient-Centered ProtocolMultidisciplinary Teaming: Enhancing Collaboration through Increased UnderstandingCommunication in Health CareCommunication in Surgery for Patient SafetyAgents of empathy: How medical interpreters bridge sociocultural gaps in genomic sequencing disclosures with Spanish-speaking familiesThe development and psychometric validation of a Chinese empathy motivation scaleEmpathic and compassionate healthcare as a Christian spiritual practiceObesity bias among preclinical and clinical chiropractic students and faculty at an integrative health care institution: A cross-sectional studyEmpathy: From Attribute to RelationshipInfluences on students' empathy in medical education: an exploratory interview study with medical students in their third and last yearTeaching future doctors to communicate: a communication intervention for medical students in their clinical yearEmpathy in general practice: its meaning for patients and doctorsEmpathically designed responses as a gateway to advice in Dutch counseling callsAnnotating and modeling empathy in spoken conversationsEmpathy can make the difference. How?The Effect of Patient Participation through Physician's Resources on Experience and WellbeingDepression/AnxietySuffering, Hope, and HealingA Review of Empathy, Its Importance, and Its Teaching in Surgical TrainingAthletes' Perception of Athletic Trainer Empathy: How Important Is It?Empathy from the perspective of oncology nursesPatients' Trust in Physician, Patient Enablement, and Health-Related Quality of Life During Colon Cancer TreatmentMeasuring Medical Students' EmpathyEmpathy in the Clinician–Patient RelationshipComparing two types of perspective taking as strategies for detecting distress amongst parents of children with cancer: A randomised trialIf You Could Read My Mind: The Role of Healthcare Providers' Empathic and Communicative Competencies in Clients' Satisfaction with ConsultationsPatients who are anxious or fearfulFatigue: Has It Affected Your Compassion?Study on Empathy among Undergraduate Students of the Medical Profession in NepalPower Relations and Health Care Communication in Older Adulthood: Educating Recipients and ProvidersBreast Biopsies are Minimally Painful, Exceed Patient Expectations, and Do Not Represent a Genuine Lasting Harm for Most WomenSpirituality and Ubuntu as the foundation for building African institutions, organizations and leadersShowing you care: An empathetic approach to doctor–patient communicationEmpathy and affect: what can empathied bodies do?Computational Analysis and Simulation of Empathic Behaviors: a Survey of Empathy with in medical students and empathy is with differences in communication and in empathy: the to clinical and at the of Social of What it to of changing empathy and patient in healthcare to for and Chronic medical communication: the of by Care A and of the Therapy of undergraduate and students medical A longitudinal studyEmpathy: what does it for A qualitative empathic and compassionate patient care: education and to the Patient with and Student Empathy in Medical Students During a Clinical and patients' perspectives on empathy: of and treatment of Approaches to the of and of a Communication in for of Healthcare as a do primary care when patients during and of the of the in a general medicine Patient Satisfaction for the . . . of of Care in the development of doctor-patient a call and a care: Enhancing physician–patient communication and education in of to Hope, and of empathy in general practice: a systematic with of Cancer Patient: of an of empathy and correlates among types of in empathic in primary care for research and with an to patients in A new perspective on empathic A for about and in longitudinal study of in interaction in treatment of in empathy medical role of and in medical education: the as as the approach to an empathic understanding of among patients and in the of The of Role of Empathy in Therapy and the New Communication Skills Assessment by Patients and and EmpathyEmpathy and Its A Review of With Medical Students and the nature of in the for health and the does care of the of of a with by among and of A to for and to clinical empathic a of Empathy with Behavior Medical Communication in in for Communication to and Patient to and A of and Cancer the and of clinical empathy: A theoretical and a research of communication in the medical A review and Clinical Empathy: An about to Physician during Care MD, H. PhD, M. MD, and and role in education about care in Competencies in Care for and Communication in patients with in the Care of Cancer in of and of Empathic during When Being Not empathy learning for be and for effective the role of care in with and in the of the medicine and outcomes of physician empathy in A structural focus study of and perceptions of the of of Medical Student role of empathy in in the a new and in the a of the An or Do You to to Patients Do Not or with Challenges and a of of the of a for children with Care. A to in care: The role of perceptions in Older in Clinical during Health and H. or Not to Is That the Right empathy and sympathy: responses to troubles on a health care with to make the patient the Communication and With Patients in Your as a of The of Medicine, and How to and A Patient-Centered Communication Illness Using to Communication Care and Social in the office approach to the Words That in to and MD, M. MD, and Frederic Platt, I Student August August August by American College of

OBJECTIVE: To describe a large cohort of patients who had chest pain following cocaine use, and to determine the incidence of and clinical characteristics predictive for myocardial infarction in this group of patients. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cocaine-associated chest pain was conducted in six municipal hospital emergency departments (EDs). Demographic variables, drug abuse patterns, medical histories, chest pain characteristics, ECG results, and laboratory data were recorded. Myocardial infarction was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Fourteen of 246 patients (5.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-8.7%) had myocardial infarction, as diagnosed by elevated CK-MB isoenzyme levels. There were two deaths (0.8%). The patients had a median age of 33 years. The majority were male (71.5%), non-white (83.3%), cigarette smokers (83.3%) who used cocaine regularly. Chest pain began a median of 60 minutes after cocaine use and persisted for a median of 120 minutes. Chest pain was most frequently described as substernal (71.3%) and pressure-like (46.7%). Shortness of breath (59.3%) and diaphoresis (38.6%) were common. There was no clinical difference between patients who had myocardial infarctions and those who did not. Twelve patients had arrhythmias and four had congestive heart failure. All cases requiring intervention were evident upon presentation. An ECG revealing ischemia or infarction had a sensitivity of 35.7% for predicting a myocardial infarction. The specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ECGs were 89.9%, 17.9%, and 95.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial infarction in patients who have cocaine-associated chest pain is not uncommon. No clinical parameter available to the physician can adequately identify patients at very low risk for myocardial infarction. Therefore, all patients with cocaine-associated chest pain should be evaluated for myocardial infarction.

IMPORTANCE: Regular oral care with chlorhexidine gluconate is standard of care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation in most hospitals. This policy is predicated on meta-analyses suggesting decreased risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but these meta-analyses may be misleading because of lack of distinction between cardiac surgery and non-cardiac surgery studies, conflation of open-label vs double-blind investigations, and insufficient emphasis on patient-centered outcomes such as duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of routine oral care with chlorhexidine on patient-centered outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until July 2013 without limits on date or language. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials comparing chlorhexidine vs placebo in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Of 171 unique citations, 16 studies including 3630 patients met inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Eligible trials were independently identified, evaluated for risk of bias, and extracted by 2 investigators. Differences were resolved by consensus. We stratified studies into cardiac surgery vs non-cardiac surgery and open-label vs double-blind investigations. Eligible studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ventilator-associated pneumonia, mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: There were fewer lower respiratory tract infections in cardiac surgery patients randomized to chlorhexidine (relative risk [RR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.41-0.77]) but no significant difference in ventilator-associated pneumonia risk in double-blind studies of non-cardiac surgery patients (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.16]). There was no significant mortality difference between chlorhexidine and placebo in cardiac surgery studies (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.25-2.14]) and nonsignificantly increased mortality in non-cardiac surgery studies (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.99-1.29]). There were no significant differences in mean duration of mechanical ventilation or intensive care length of stay. Data on hospital length of stay and antibiotic prescribing were limited. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Routine oral care with chlorhexidine prevents nosocomial pneumonia in cardiac surgery patients but may not decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia risk in non-cardiac surgery patients. Chlorhexidine use does not affect patient-centered outcomes in either population. Policies encouraging routine oral care with chlorhexidine for non-cardiac surgery patients merit reevaluation.

To investigate several neurobiological theories we evaluated the neuropsychological functioning of 15 non-mentally retarded autistic adolescents and young adults and 15 controls matched on age, gender, IQ, and race. The autistic subjects were found to perform less well than controls on measures of abstraction involving cognitive flexibility, verbal reasoning, complex memory, and complex language comprehension in the absence of significant differences on measures of attention, associative memory, and the rule-learning aspects of abstraction. These findings are most consistent with a generalized abnormality in complex information processing and would not support theories purporting fundamental deficits in attention or information acquisition.

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures are becoming increasingly important for evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions and assessing the health of populations. Preference-based instruments, a subset of HRQOL measures, allow comparisons of overall health status in populations and in clinical settings, and are suitable for economic analyses; but validity studies have used selected samples, mostly examining morbidity. This study compared the performance of a preference-based instrument with self-rated health in predicting subsequent self-rated health, hospitalization, and mortality in a national cohort. A version of the Health Utility Index (HUI), constructed from questions in the 1982 to 1984 National Health and Examination Survey I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS), was used to develop scores for the 1982 to 1984 survey sample. The relationship between both the NHEFS-HUI and self-rated health in 1982 to 1984, and subsequent decline in self-rated health, hospitalizations, and mortality experienced by 1987 were examined using survival analyses. The analyses adjusted for sociodemographic variables (age, sex, race, education, and income), medical conditions, and smoking status reported at the 1982 to 1984 NHEFS interview. Results indicated that NHEFS-HUI and self-rated health scores were worse in older persons, persons with one or more medical conditions, African Americans, and those with less education and lower incomes. The effects of all 19 chronic conditions and smoking were reflected in lower self-rated health scores, whereas the NHEFS-HUI did not capture the effects of two of the conditions or smoking status. Both measures made independent contributions to predicting hospitalizations and mortality by 1987; in addition, the NHEFS-HUI predicted decline in subsequent self-rated health. The NHEFS-HUI also predicted health outcomes in the subgroup of those in initial excellent or very good self-rated health. A preference-based instrument demonstrated predictive validity in three relevant domains of health status outcomes across all sociodemographic groups examined in this cohort. Self-rated health was better able to capture concurrent decrements in health associated with certain chronic illnesses and smoking. It is concluded that preference-based measures capturing both functional status and health perceptions should be incorporated explicitly into national surveys to assess the health of populations.

Medical interviewing is the foundation of medical care and is the clinician's most important activity. A growing body of evidence suggests that clinicians use distinctive, describable behaviors to conduct medical interviews. This article describes four patterns of behavior that we term Habits and reviews the research evidence that links each Habit with both biomedical and functional outcomes of care. The Four Habits are: Invest in the Beginning, Elicit the Patient's Perspective, Demonstrate Empathy, and Invest in the End. Each Habit refers to a family of skills. In addition, the Habits bear a sequential relationship to one another and are thus interdependent. The Four Habits approach offers an efficient and practical framework for organizing the flow of medical visits. It is unique because it concentrates on families of interviewing skills and on their inter-relationships.

Investigated performance on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) of 92 psychiatric and neurological patients classified as memory-impaired (N = 45) or non-memory-impaired (N = 47). The groups were comparable on age and education. Relative to the non-memory-impaired Ss, performance of the memory-impaired patients was significantly lower on all AVLT scores, ps less than .01. The AVLT appears to hold promise as a quick screening measure for the clinical evaluation of patients with suspected verbal learning and memory impairments.