Engaging parents through gaze: speaker selection in three-party interactions in maternity clinics

Comparisons of Communication in Medical Face-To-Face and Teleconsultations: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought telemedicine into mainstream medical practice (although questions remain over its role in a post-pandemic world). Research suggests that most patients and providers are satisfied with the flexibility and convenience of teleconsultations. However, there is continuing uncertainty about whether this shift has a clinically relevant impact on the quality of doctor-patient interaction. We conducted a systematic search of studies comparing communication in medical face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations. We included only studies which examined communication directly using recordings, excluding studies which used questionnaires or interviews. Studies were appraised using modified versions of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. Our search yielded 25,348 records, of which 22 were included in the final review. These studies were conducted in various medical specialties. Methodologies included approaches based on quantified communication behaviors using coding systems and qualitative studies using microanalytic methods. Except for duration (where there was evidence of face-to-face consultations being longer), no differences between the two modes of communication were consistently identified. In the aggregate, however, statistically significant differences were more prominent in primary care and more likely to favor face-to-face consultations. Qualitative studies also highlighted differences in how communication behaviors were manifested in each modality. Because much of the examined research was conducted in selected or non-routine settings, its applicability to the less selective use of telemedicine during and after the pandemic is limited.

How companions speak on patients' behalf without undermining their autonomy: Findings from a conversation analytic study of palliative care consultations

Companions are individuals who support patients and attend health-care appointments with them. Several studies characterised companions' participation in broad terms, glossing over the details of how they time and design their actions, and how patients and health-care practitioners (HCPs) respond to them. This article aims to examine these aspects in detail by using conversation analysis, focusing on actions whereby companions speak on patients' behalf-mentioning delicate aspects of patients' experience (specifically, by alluding to patients' thoughts or feelings about dying). Some studies suggested that these actions undermine patients' autonomy. By contrast, through examination of palliative care consultations in a UK hospice, we found that these interventions are warranted by contextual circumstances: they are either invited by patients or HCPs (through questions or gaze) or volunteered to help with the progression of an activity (e.g. when a patient does not answer an HCP's question). Additionally, all parties collaborate in constructing these companion interventions as temporary departures from an otherwise prevailing normative orientation to patients' right to speak for themselves. The study contributes to the sociology of health and illness by characterising how companions contribute to the ways in which participants coordinate their relative rights and responsibilities, and ultimately their relationships, within health-care interactions.