Shruti Chawla, Year 3
For everyone who is currently practising for OSCEs, you may have realised that ICE forms are an integral part of the mark scheme here at Leeds.
The concept of ICE (ideas, concerns, and expectations) was first articulated in The Consultation, the 1984 text, and is a consulting tool implemented within the Calgary-Cambridge Model (the gold-standard for consulting). This tool was created with the aim of emphasising a collaborative consulting model, actively involving the patient within the process of diagnosis, whilst also taking the all-important holistic approach—therefore, allowing a clinician to understand what the patient in front of them is truly thinking about the issue at hand.
Through the curriculum, ICE is usually taught through the form of three short questions:
- What do you think may be causing this “issue”?
- Is there anything you’re particularly concerned about regarding this?
- What can I help you with today?
Through these three questions, the desired take-away is a greater understanding of patient-affecting factors. A prime example of this is a mother with three children who may be concerned about her long-standing cough being cancer; perhaps due to her having dependents. The beauty of this model is that patients are given the space to express the background behind the presenting complaint, alongside the opportunity to communicate questions they previously may have disregarded as “minor”.
It is often said that a quick ICE at the start of the consultation can guide the whole process, tailoring your examinations, prescriptions and general advice towards what the patient is looking for. But what is what is the genuine patient opinion of ICE? Does it come across as helpful as we presume it to be?
Recently, I came across a BMJ article entitled “I never asked to be ICE’d” (Snow, 2016) which piqued my interest. To summarise the article, ICE can come across rather negatively—in being asked what “you” think is wrong it may place pressure on the patient, leaving them feeling as though they’re being tested. Worryingly, some patients may even see this as a sign of the doctor’s training falling short since they expect clear answers, rather than counter-questioning.
What is the gold standard of communication, if not ICE?
A suggestion made would be to make an effort to create genuine rapport. Instead of using a set standard, the focus should be on answering the patient’s questions, giving them plenty of time throughout the consultation to ask these.
Forming a clear line of questioning, with explanations as to why questions are relevant, does a better job of creating open communication pathways which are essential to a collaborative consultation style.
One way to think about ICE is more as a template to help when you’re unsure of how to start a consultation. If you’re comfortable with spontaneous conversation then it might be better to develop your own set of phrases that cover the ICE topics, but are less likely to recieve a confused response from the patients.
Now this all sounds rather negative, but there must be a reason why ICE is such an integral part of the OSCE.
The cross-sectional study by Matthys et al. (2009) looked at the impact of ICE on prescribing in general practice. Thirty-six GP practices in Belgium showed a mean of 1.54 of the ICE components being used per consultation, from a baseline of 0. They concluded that the presence of ICE (albeit a few components) led to less medication prescribing.
Whilst this relationship hasn’t yet proved to be “causal”, it may suggest that exploring the patient’s views more thoroughly could lead to less prescription use. A prevalent example would be assessing why a patient is worried if they have a viral respiratory infection; providing them with the reassurance they seek, rather than the unnecessary antibiotic prescription.
It’s clear that the NHS is moving from a model of continuity to accessibility. In this scenario, ICE may be the quickest and most effective way to ascertain the basic concerns of the patient, and a few more social points about their lives. It serves as a good reminder throughout the consultation to ensure that we treat the patient, not just the condition.
However, whilst I will definitely be using ICE for those all-important OSCE marks—perhaps more through my own choice of phrasing—reading around the subject has left me with a few points to ponder:
- Has ICE become a paradox?
- By turning this into a box-ticking exercise, have we lost the true idea of the holistic approach?
- Has ICE made us lose our interest for genuine connection through it being the component of an 8-minute exam station?
To conclude, theoretically, ICE is a fantastic, easy consulting tool that allows a clinician to access the wider picture. However, with freedom of information, and patient’s understanding this system, it may soon lose that charm. It is important to assess as future doctors whether this textbook method may require some personalisation—as I think we can all agree that medicine is far from a transactional or impersonal discipline.
References
Matthys, J., Elwyn, G., Van Nuland, M., Van Maele, G., De Sutter, A., De Meyere, M. and Deveugele, M. 2009. Patients’ ideas, concerns, and expectations (ICE) in general practice: impact on prescribing. Br J Gen Pract. 59(558), pp.29-36.Snow, R. 2016. I never asked to be ICE’d. BMJ.354, pi3729.










