ELSEVIRE Global Medical News
Search Elsevier Global Medical News
 
 
  Diamond Headache   American Academy of Neurology   American Headache Society
 
This news site is not sanctioned by, nor part of, the Diamond Headache Foundation, The American Academy of Neurology OR The American Headache Society.
News covering selected sessions related to migraine from 2008 medical conferences.
 
50th Annual Meeting of the American Headache Society Boston, Massachusetts June 26-29, 2008
Home
For many Migraineurs, Symptoms foretell onset of Headache
  Tertiary headache care now pays off in Better Health, Lower Costs Later
Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Headache Patients
  State-by-State Headache Care
Office based headache clinic eases burden on Emergency Departments
How Pain becomes Chronic Facilitation and Amplification
The Year's Top Clinical Advances
Role of Vascular Endothelium in Migraine
Physician Perspective on Patient Communication
Harold G. Wolff Lecture Award Recipient Warns Against Medication Overuse
Headache Care Providers urged to use open-ended Questions
International Classification of Headache Proves to be a Crucial Advance
Improved Communication Strategies can Aid Headache Treatment
Modulation of Headache Pain
Glial Cells and Pain Control
No evidence-based research supports idiopathic ntracranical Hypertension Treatments
Neurostimulation for Refractory Primary Headache
Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Primary Headache
Headache Care Providers urged to use open-ended Questions 
BY MAURY M. BREECHER
Contributing Writer
BOSTON — Many physicians fear that asking “open-ended” questions of patients will significantly increase the length of office visits, but data from the American Migraine Communication Studies (AMCS-I & II) refute that concern, said Dr. Richard B. Lipton at the 50th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society on June 29.

“Despite headache care providers’ concern that open-ended questions would lead to significantly increased length of office visits, AMCS-II visits were shorter than AMCS-I visits (an average of 9 minutes, 36 seconds vs. 11 minutes),” stated Dr. Lipton of Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Montefiore Medical Center in New York.

The AMCS-1 & II Studies were two-stage collaborations between specialists in medical communication and clinical providers who focus on headache treatment and management.

Both studied “real world” interactions between headache care providers and patients, said Dr. Lipton. Both studies were funded by Ortho-McNeil Neurologics.

“It is important to focus studies on migraine and communication because migraine remains underdiagnosed, undertreated, and misunderstood,” said Dr. Lipton, citing his own research. “Surveys of migraine patients reveal that only 29% are ‘very satisfied’ with their treatment.” (Headache. 1999;39:S20-S26; Neurology. 2002;58:885-894).

AMCS-I was an observational study with the purpose of understanding what actually goes on between health care professions and migraine patients and to identify barriers to efficient communication.

AMCS-II was an intervention study to assess the benefits of specific communication strategies designed to overcome these barriers. First, primary care physicians and neurology practices were identified and then patients likely to discuss headache were flagged in the waiting room. The medical visits were videotaped and recorded and afterward the patients were interviewed about their visit.

“The reason this study was exciting to me was that we actually had the opportunity to see what was happening in the room between clinicians and headache sufferers and then debrief them so we could get a handle on their perceptions,” said Dr. Lipton.

Participating in AMCS-II were 28 clinicians and 66 patients. Their average age was 42 years, 83% were female and had headache histories of an average of 14 years. Participating patients averaged five migraine episodes per day, 60% required bed rest or were severely impaired by migraines.

AMCS-I revealed that clinicians asked predominantly closed-ended questions about headache frequency, symptoms, and triggers rather than open-ended questions such as, “Tell me about your headaches” or “How do your headaches affect your life.”

Most clinicians asked an average of 12 to 13 questions, but patients did not get to tell their stories, said Dr. Lipton. There was a lack of attention to the extent of patient disability and impairment and patient education efforts were made without assessing existing understanding of the issues.

Recommendations from AMCS-I for improving communication included asking open-ended questions to let patients tell their story and to encourage communication about impact. Also, clinicians should use “ask-tell-ask” methodology for patient education and to assess frequency.

The first “ask” question reveals current understanding and identifies whether correct information has been gathered, allows correction of incorrect information, and identification of missing information.

The “tell” portion of the protocol is based on the ask and allows doctors to reinforce and add the most important next piece of critical information, identify and correct misunderstandings, but not waste time on what is known.

The second “ask” tests for understanding, controls the information provided with each “tell,” and repeats the sequence in an iterative process.

Dr. Lipton offered an example of the ask-tell-ask system:

Ask patients the following questions to assess headache frequency: How many migraines do you get per month and how long do they typically last?

Tell the patient what you understood: “So you get three migraines that last two days each for a total of six days of migraine per month.”

Ask “Is that correct?” to make sure you understood correctly. (Hahn SR, Poster presented at Diamond Headache Clinic’s 20th Annual Practicing Physician’s Approach to the Difficult Headache Patient, Feb. 2007, Rancho Mirage, CA).
Copyright 2008 Elsevier Custom Conference Coverage. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, through negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the Publisher recommends that independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Publisher, the sponsor, or the editors. Elsevier assumes no liability for any material published herein.
 
 
  Copyright ©2010 Elsevier/International Medical News Group
  5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 6000
Rockville, MD 20852
Rights reserved Clinical Neurology News Network