When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations

In risk we trust? Making decisions about knee replacement

Risk communication is a key legal and ethical component of shared decision-making. Decisions about total knee replacement, a common surgery, must contend with the fact that a minority of cases result in unintended outcomes, some of which have devastating effects. To understand how risks are communicated during decision-making, we audio-recorded and analysed 62 consultations between surgeons and patients. Various communication methods were evident, including listing risks without elaboration, discussing them in a conversational manner, abrogating discussion of risk, or using decision-tools. Discussion of risks was often brief in nature, and risk communication was sometimes curtailed or deferred by both patients and surgeons. Risks could also be observed to play a part in reinforcing policy norms of the doctor-patient relationship that highlighted patient responsibility. Nevertheless, patients and surgeons in the observed consultations appeared more interested in developing trusting relationships than in discussing risks. Because patients had sometimes experienced considerable deterioration in their knee function before their consultation, were in pain and struggled with mobility, the realities of clinical practice clashed with the policy norms of choice and patient responsibility. Rather, decisions could appear coerced by the disease process rather than being clear-cut examples of self-determination. While policy norms putatively use risk disclosure to frame communication between patients and clinicians as a transaction between customer and technician, the lack of conformity to these norms in the consultations may indicate resistance to this framing. A greater emphasis on determining positive roles for trust and care would help policy to present a nuanced understanding of decision-making. Risk communication could be seen as a factor in the formation of trusting relationships, improving its role in decision-making processes while recognising its inherent tensions with practice.

A Conversation Analytic Study of Calls to Medical Reception for Doctor's Appointments

A call to medical reception is regularly an entry point into primary health care services. Telephone-mediated interactions between patients and receptionists have been found to temper demand for doctor's appointments and influence patient satisfaction ratings; yet little is known about what exactly happens to produce those effects. The present study asks how medical receptionists respond to telephone-mediated appointment requests. Audio recordings of 18 calls between receptionists and patients at a New Zealand University health care practice were collected, transcribed and examined in detail using conversation analysis. The findings reveal the complexity of telephone-mediated medical receptionist work which involves multiple engagements involving the caller and the on-line booking systems. The work has clinical components and evidence was found of receptionists' orientations to the potential urgency of callers' problems and how a triaging process was initiated. Overall, this study shows medical receptionists do skillful communicative work granting patient requests or progressing relevant courses of action in a clinically responsible way, thus delivering a valuable and unrecognized aspect of health care delivery.

Epistemic Trust as an Interactional Accomplishment in Pediatric Well-Child Visits: Parents' Resistance to Solicited Advice as Performing Epistemic Vigilance

Epistemic trust - i.e. the belief in knowledge claims we do not understand or cannot validate - is pivotal in healthcare interactions where trust in the source of knowledge is the foundation for adherence to therapy as well as general compliance with the physician's suggestions. However, in the contemporary knowledge society professionals can no longer count on unconditional epistemic trust: boundaries of the legitimacy and extension criteria of expertise have become increasingly fuzzier and professionals must take into account laypersons' expertise. Drawing on a conversation analysis-informed study of 23 videorecorded pediatrician-led well-child visits, the article deals with the communicative constitution of healthcare-relevant phenomena such as: epistemic and deontic struggles between parents and pediatricians, the local accomplishment of (responsible) epistemic trust, and the possible outcomes of blurred boundaries between the layperson's and the professional's "expertise." In particular, we illustrate how epistemic trust is communicatively built in sequences where parents request the pediatrician's advice and resist it. The analysis shows how parents perform epistemic vigilance by suspending the immediate acceptance of the pediatrician's advice in favor of inserting expansions that make it relevant for the pediatrician to account for her advice. Once the pediatrician has addressed parents' concerns, parents perform (delayed) acceptance, which we assume indexes what we call responsible epistemic trust. While acknowledging the advantages of what seems to be a cultural change in parent-healthcare provider encounters, in the conclusion we advance that possible risks are implied in contemporary fuzziness of the legitimacy and extension criteria of expertise in doctor-patient interaction.

Talking About Things: A Patient Cue for Sensitive Healthcare Problems and Effective Physician Responses

In routine healthcare consultations, patients often use prefaces containing the word "thing", including "the thing is", "there's this thing" or "one more thing". Although "thing" is an all-encompassing term that is used in myriad ways, in this article we show that thing-prefaces perform a specific job. This study uses Conversation Analysis to analyze 90 video-recorded primary care consultations with 14 primary care physicians in the United States. Patients' thing-prefaces mark the upcoming talk as a disclosure of sensitive information that may reflect negatively on the patient, physician or service (e.g., medication nonadherence, refill was not sent to pharmacy). Patients pursue explicit resolution of these problems (e.g., personalized recommendation, lab work, referral) despite these problems being downplayed and treated as delicate. Because patients may "talk around" these sensitive issues, thing-prefaces can be an important cue for physicians that patients are seeking resolution for a sensitive healthcare problem.

Arriving at no: Patient pressure to prescribe antibiotics and physicians' responses

While the vast majority of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) are viral, between a quarter and a third of adults presenting with ARIs are given an antibiotic, making antibiotic prescribing for ARIs a major contributor to the inappropriate prescribing problem. We argue that inappropriate prescribing persists because of the interplay between physicians and patients in the medical visit. Relying on a convenience sample of 68 video recordings of primary care medical visits drawn from corpora collected in 2003-2004 and 2015-2016 in the US, we show that although few patients are "demanding" or "requesting" antibiotics, many convey subtle forms of pressure through priming physicians for a bacterial diagnosis in their problem presentations; nudging towards a bacterial diagnosis during information gathering; and resisting non-antibiotic recommendations during the counseling phase. We find that patient priming, nudging, and resisting are effective strategies to influence clinical prescribing behavior. However, we also identify two ways that physicians can counter patient pressure by working to manage patient expectations through foreshadowing a non-antibiotic outcome and using persuasion when confronted with resistance. These, we show, are effective means of countering patient pressure. We argue for the dual importance of how physicians communicate and when they communicate.