The first five minutes of care

Evidence Review · ER-001

Before any history is taken or any examination begins, a clinical encounter has already started: the building, the entrance, the first face a patient sees, the first words spoken, the name they are called. This note examines what the evidence actually says about that opening — the first few minutes of contact — and, just as importantly, how much of it is specific to transgender patients and how much is borrowed from general healthcare research.

The question

Do the first few minutes of a clinical encounter — the waiting environment, the greeting, the first words, and whether a patient is addressed by their chosen name — measurably affect care and outcomes? And how much of the available evidence is specific to transgender patients rather than extrapolated from the general population?

Why it matters

Anticipated discrimination is a documented driver of healthcare avoidance and delay among transgender people. Using data from the 2015 US Transgender Survey (adults aged 25 to 64, N = 19,157), Kcomt and colleagues found that roughly one in five — 22.8% — had avoided healthcare because they anticipated being mistreated, with transgender men at higher odds than transgender women. Earlier analysis of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (N = 3,486) found that 30.8% had delayed or gone without needed care because of discrimination, and that those who had to teach their own providers about transgender people were four times more likely to delay care.

This avoidance is not without cost. In a study of 417 transgender adults, those who delayed care because of fear of discrimination had substantially higher odds of current depression, a past-year suicide attempt, and past-year suicidal ideation than those who did not delay. The first minutes of an encounter are the point at which a patient’s anticipation — built from prior experience — is either confirmed or disconfirmed. That makes the opening the part of the visit most able to set, or reset, the relationship.

One caveat belongs here rather than later: this avoidance evidence is drawn almost entirely from adults, and largely from US survey samples. The mechanism — anticipated stigma leading to avoidance — is plausibly relevant to adolescents and to the parents who bring them, but direct paediatric evidence is thinner.

What the evidence says

First impressions form within seconds — but the core study is face perception, not clinical care. In a series of experiments, Willis and Todorov found that people form trait judgements — including trustworthiness — after as little as 100 milliseconds of exposure to a face, and that additional viewing time mainly increased their confidence rather than changing the judgement. This is laboratory social-cognition work, not a clinical trial. It establishes the mechanism the opening of any encounter relies on — that humans form rapid impressions — but it does not, on its own, measure an effect on care.

The clinician relationship has a measurable, if modest, effect on outcomes. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that deliberately varied the patient–clinician relationship found a small but statistically significant beneficial effect on objective and validated subjective health outcomes; the authors described the magnitude as comparable to that of several established medical treatments. A separate meta-analysis of 47 studies found that patients’ trust in their clinician correlated with health outcomes at r = 0.24 (95% CI 0.19–0.29), with a stronger association for patient-reported outcomes and no significant association for objective ones — and the authors cautioned about likely upward bias. Both bodies of work are general-population and adult. They support the principle that the relationship matters; they do not isolate the first few minutes specifically.

Chosen-name use is associated with better mental health in transgender youth. In a community cohort of 129 transgender and gender-nonconforming young people aged 15 to 21 across three US cities, using one’s chosen name in more life contexts was associated with lower depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behaviour. Compared with young people who could not use their chosen name in any context, those who could use it across all four studied contexts — home, school, work, and with friends — reported 71% fewer symptoms of severe depression, 34% lower suicidal ideation, and 65% fewer suicide attempts; even a single context was associated with 29% lower ideation. The analysis adjusted for personal characteristics and social support. This is the most directly relevant trans-specific finding for the opening of an encounter — though the contexts studied were life settings, not the clinic, so its application to “what can I call you?” at first contact is an inference rather than a directly measured effect.

Misgendering is a recognised stressor that the opening can remove. Within gender minority stress models, being misnamed or misgendered is a “distal” stressor — an external event linked to poorer mental health through internalised stigma, rumination, and isolation. Getting a patient’s name and pronouns right from the first moment of contact removes one such stressor from the encounter before it can occur.

The physical environment affects measured stress. The evidence-based healthcare-design literature associates features such as natural light, views or images of nature, indoor plants, reduced noise, and less overtly clinical waiting environments with lower anxiety and improved mood, sometimes with physiological correlates such as blood pressure. This literature is general — largely cisgender or unspecified populations — and concerns environmental features in the abstract rather than any particular clinic’s specific design choices.

Where evidence is uncertain

Correlation is not causation. The chosen-name and trust findings are observational and cross-sectional. They show association, not proof that name use or a warm opening causes better outcomes. The randomised evidence — the relationship meta-analysis — is the main causal source, and there the measured effect is small.

“First impressions in seconds” is being stretched. The 100-millisecond finding concerns judgements of static faces in a laboratory. The inference that a patient settles a durable judgement of a clinician within seconds of a real consultation is plausible, but it is not what those studies measured.

“Psychological safety” has a specific meaning that differs from its everyday use here. As a formal construct, psychological safety describes a team’s shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, and its healthcare evidence base concerns clinical teams and staff speaking up about safety — not a patient’s felt sense of safety in a room. The patient-facing idea intended here is better grounded in the trust and minority-stress literature than in the psychological-safety literature proper.

Specific operational choices are untested. Particular design decisions — removing the waiting room, assigning two named companions, a first-name-only contact card — are coherent extrapolations from the evidence above, but they have not themselves been evaluated in trials. The absence of trial evidence is not evidence that they do not work; it means their specific effect sizes are unknown.

Key takeaways

• The opening minutes of care are supported by real evidence, but most of it is indirect: general research on first impressions, the clinician relationship, and the care environment, alongside trans-specific research on chosen names, misgendering, and avoidance.
• The single best-evidenced, trans-specific, actionable element is getting a patient’s chosen name and pronouns right from first contact — associated with markedly better mental health in transgender youth, though the data are observational and drawn from life settings rather than the clinic.
• Anticipated discrimination measurably drives avoidance and delay, and avoidance is linked to worse mental health; the first encounter is the clearest opportunity to disconfirm that anticipation. These data are adult; paediatric evidence is thinner.
• The therapeutic relationship does affect outcomes, but the measured effect is modest rather than dramatic — worth stating accurately rather than overstating.
• Most environmental and first-impression evidence is general-population and should be cited as supportive context, not as trans-specific proof.

References

1. Willis J, Todorov A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x
2. Kelley JM, Kraft-Todd G, Schapira L, Kossowsky J, Riess H. (2014). The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e94207. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094207
3. Birkhäuer J, Gaab J, Kossowsky J, Hasler S, Krummenacher P, Werner C, Gerger H. (2017). Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(2), e0170988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170988
4. Russell ST, Pollitt AM, Li G, Grossman AH. (2018). Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(4), 503–505. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003
5. Kcomt L, Gorey KM, Barrett BJ, McCabe SE. (2020). Healthcare avoidance due to anticipated discrimination among transgender people: a call to create trans-affirmative environments. SSM – Population Health, 11, 100608. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100608
6. Jaffee KD, Shires DA, Stroumsa D. (2016). Discrimination and delayed health care among transgender women and men: implications for improving medical education and health care delivery. Medical Care, 54(11), 1010–1016. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000583
7. Seelman KL, Colón-Diaz MJP, LeCroix RH, Xavier-Brier M, Kattari L. (2017). Transgender noninclusive healthcare and delaying care because of fear: connections to general health and mental health among transgender adults. Transgender Health, 2(1), 17–28. doi:10.1089/trgh.2016.0024
8. Meyer IH. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
9. Testa RJ, Habarth J, Peta J, Balsam K, Bockting W. (2015). Development of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. doi:10.1037/sgd0000081
10. Edmondson AC. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999
11. Ulrich RS, Zimring C, Zhu X, DuBose J, Seo H-B, Choi Y-S, Quan X, Joseph A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61–125. doi:10.1177/193758670800100306
12. Leather P, Beale D, Santos A, Watts J, Lee L. (2003). Outcomes of environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 842–869. doi:10.1177/0013916503254777