Choosing Words Wisely: Residents' Use of Rhetorical Appeals in Conversations About Unnecessary Tests.

Abstract

To characterize how residents employ rhetorical appeals (i.e., the strategic use of communication to achieve specifiable goals) when discussing unnecessary diagnostic tests with patients. In 2015, senior hematology residents from 10 Canadian universities participating in a national formative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) completed a resource stewardship communication station. In this communication scenario, a standardized patient (SP) portrayed a patient requesting unnecessary thrombophilia testing following early pregnancy loss. The authors performed a thematic analysis of audio transcripts using a qualitative description approach to identify residents' rhetorical appeals to logic (rational appeals), credibility, and emotion. For persuasive communication, residents (n = 27) relied primarily on rational appeals that fit into 3 categories (with themes) focused on medical evidence (poor utility, professional guidelines and recommendations), avoidance of harm (insurance implications, unnecessary or potentially harmful interventions, patient anxiety), and reassurance to patient (normalizing, clinical pretest probability, criteria for reconsidering testing). Appeals to credibility and emotion were rarely used. In an OSCE setting, residents relied predominantly on rational appeals when engaging SPs in conversations about unnecessary tests. These observations yield insights into how recent emphasis within residency education on appropriate test utilization may manifest when residents put recommendations into practice in conversations with patients. This study's framework of rational appeals may be helpful in designing communication curricula about unnecessary testing. Future studies should explore rhetoric about unnecessary testing in the clinical environment, strategies to teach and coach residents leading these conversations, and patients' preferences and responses to different appeals.