Physicians, nurses, and physician assistants talk to the press for a variety of reasons -- sometimes they are reporting "good news" and sometimes the news is tragic as in the case of a natural or man made disaster. Other times they are joining the national debate on healthcare.
But aside from providing needed information the public and possibly burnishing either their reputations or that of their institutions, there may be an unintended, but beneficial side-effect: this public communication may improve their ability to communicate with patients.
MedPage Today raised that possibility with 77 physicians, all of whom previously agreed to be included in the MedPage Today source database that includes more than 4,000 practicing physicians, researchers, and academics.
Specifically, the 77 were sent this question: "Does speaking with reporters in any way help with speaking to patients?"
Fifty two of the 77 responded, and of the responders 28 agreed that talking to the press does make them better communicators with their patients.
Reviewing these positive responses four factors emerged as the main considerations for those who agreed with the premise:
- Talking with reporters helped them simplify information;
- Talking with reporters helped them learn how to summarize information;
- Answering reporters' questions let them practice ways to answer questions;
- Talking with reporters gave them the opportunity to develop messages.
Simplify, Simplify, Simplify
"Actually, speaking with the media is helpful in distilling otherwise complex medical information into a format that can be easily grasped by unsophisticated patients and family members who are trying to understand a given medical situation, " explained Robert Mayer, MD, an oncologist from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
The value of simplifying was echoed by Paul Pepe, MD an emergency medicine specialist from the University of Texas, Southwestern.
"Getting to (the) point, not getting too complex, yet still showing balanced thinking (in a sentence), is an important asset that years of speaking to reporters helped to hone." Pepe, who has written extensively about physicians and the media, added:
"Overall concept here -- know your audience -- never mention the technical stuff and why it's complicated -- they want to know the bottom line -- tell them more if they ask."
Summarize, Answer
This process of simplifying also helps when summarizing information, according to Ajay Kirtane, MD, a cardiologist from Columbia University Medical Center. "It sometimes feels like one is 'performing data-synthesis for the patient' the same way one might 'perform' for the camera/reporters."
"I have learned a lot not only having such people (the press) make me answer their questions over and over until I got it right but on their identifying what people really want to know rather than just what I think is important," said Larry Norton MD, oncologist from Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Norton also noted that "Good communication is being able to hear things the way other people hear them even while you are speaking."
On Message?
Messaging was stated as another benefit by Jennifer Robinson, MD, a cardiovascular epidemiologist at the University of Iowa. "I do find that over time I develop essential messages into high impact 'sound bites' for patients."
Finally, the issue of doctors being a different kind of "bilingual" was mentioned. "We have to be bilingual, proficient in speaking two languages, medical and lay, while conveying complex medical issues," said Susan Manzi, MD, a rheumatologist at the Allegheny Health System. Manzi said contacts with the press provides practice in speaking the two languages. "The more practice we have the better we are at our second language, and speaking to reporters and doing media interviews is a great way to practice. It is so easy to slip into our first language comfort zone."
On the Flip Side
Although a majority of responders saw benefit in communicating with the press, 10 said the reverse was true.
Their conversations with patients, which are far more numerous, helped prepare them to speak with the press. The techniques of communication are different, in the view of Larry B.Goldstein, MD, a neurologist at the University of Kentucky. "Speaking with patients, I use a variety of techniques such as Ask-Tell-Ask to assure understanding, which is not appropriate in an interview setting."
Another difference mentioned was the issue of scientific breakthroughs. "When reporting scientific breakthroughs, patients and their families again want to know if the information is relevant to their condition whereas the general public is often just happy to know someone may be helped in the future," said Jerris Hedges, MD, an emergency medicine specialist from the University of Hawaii. "My point is that the conversations are different," he said.
And then one respondent suggested that the structure used for delivering information was different. Chris Cannon, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital said "You in journalism have the headline first, then key points, then some context, and at the very end, details on methods."
But Cannon said that isn't how medical communication works. "We do the opposite -- we give background, then methods, then slowly walk through results, and THEN we give the punchline of what is new and some context on why this is important."
A blunter view of the differences was put forth by Milton Packer, MD, a cardiologist from Baylor Scott and White Health, and MedPage Today blogger. "Actually, I think the two processes are very different. The goal in speaking to a patient is to make sure that they understand. The goal in speaking to a reporter is to make sure that they do not misunderstand. Do you see the difference?"
David Katz, MD, a preventive medicine specialist from Yale University said that in doctor-patient communication, listening is more important that talking. And he added, "At times, what matters most is simply, truly being there. Again, the clinical power of human touch does not translate well to morning shows!"
And one doctor's view was that the communication used with both patients and the reporters isn't different. "I think the principles of talking effectively with patients and reporters are the same and that the key is listening WHILE you talk so that you can ascertain whether the patient (or the reporter) is fully grasping the conversation," said Robert Schooley, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California San Diego.
And Finally
What really matters, according to one respondent is not the differences but the similarities in communication to patients and the press. Clyde Yancy, MD, a cardiologist from Northwestern Medicine emphasized points that are important regardless if the conversation is with patients or the press.
What, then, is really important for any audience?
It is important to have an understanding of the subject matter and to develop the ability to distill complex information to easily digested and translatable key points. Likewise, Yancy said is a "willingness to learn how to communicate and the ability to make eye contact while communicating."
"Finally," Yancy said, "make certain that you are able to convey your points to a child; if you can't make a child understand your message, it's not the message, it's you."