Smartphone standoff: a qualitative study exploring clinician responses when a patient uses a smartphone to record a hospital clinical encounter

Beyond Recording the Clinical Discussion: A Qualitative Study into Patient-Led Recordings in Hospital

Patient-led recording occurs when a patient records a clinical encounter with their smart device. Understanding patient-led recording is important in ensuring a safe and patient-centered response to this behavior. This exploratory study provides insight into the patient perspective of patient-led recordings. We conducted 20 semistructured interviews with hospital and health service patients. The interview data was analyzed using thematic analysis. We identified three themes relating to patient-led recordings, including patient engagement, psychosocial, and health service. Findings suggest that health services move beyond querying the permissibility of recording and consider how to maximize the benefits of recording while reducing the risk of harm. Patients and clinicians need to be made aware of the potential broader psychosocial benefits of recording a clinical encounter during hospital admission. These results point to an urgent need for health services to develop policies and resources that support clinicians to work within a culture of recording.

'What are you hiding from me?' A qualitative study exploring health consumer attitudes and experiences regarding the patient-led recording of a hospital clinical encounter

OBJECTIVE

Health consumers (patients, their family, friends and carers) are frequently using their smartphones to record hospital clinical encounters. However, there is limited research which has explored the social interaction surrounding this behaviour. Understanding the consumer perspective is key to informing policy and practice. This study explored consumer attitudes and experiences regarding patient-led recordings.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 20 hospital consumers. Participants were recruited via advertising, posters and invitation letters. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Four main themes were identified relating to participant perspectives of patient-led recordings: (1) consumers viewed clinician consent as important, although they reported different experiences of the consent process, (2) consumers indicated that a clinician refusing the recording had the potential to undermine the consumer-clinician relationship, (3) consumers were both uninformed and misinformed regarding relevant policy and legislation and (4) consumers expressed a number of expectations regarding their rights to record and of the health service in supporting this practice.

CONCLUSION

Consumers want to record their clinical encounters with the consent of their clinician but are unprepared to navigate consent discussions. Health services and clinicians should inform consumers who want to record about their rights and responsibilities, to support the consent process and safe recording environments. Clinician refusal to consent to a patient-led recording may not lead to increased covert recording; however, clear communication about the reasons for refusing a recording is needed to protect the consumer-clinician relationship.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A health consumer was part of the research team and was involved in all stages of this study, including the design, data analysis and reviewing of the manuscript.

Defining covert recording: A qualitative study exploring the experiences of clinicians when a patient records a hospital clinical encounter using a smartphone without consent

Background

Patients use their smartphones to covertly record their clinical encounters in hospital. However, this issue is poorly understood. Insight into the clinician perspective will help inform policies and practices that deliver safe environments for patients and clinicians.

Objective

This study aimed to gain a deep understanding of clinician attitudes and behaviours when a patient covertly records a hospital clinical encounter using a smartphone.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 20 hospital clinicians. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted in person or via Microsoft Teams. Interviews were digitally audio recorded and transcribed. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Most of the 20 participants reported they had either suspected or experienced a patient covertly recording a clinical encounter. Covert recordings occurred across a broad range of clinical disciplines and contexts. Themes were identified from participant perspectives, including discernment of patient intention, likeliness to consent to the recording if asked, anticipated risks and potential benefits associated with the covert recording. These themes have led to the categorisation of three forms of covert recording: (1) Intentional Covert Recording (2) Inadvertently – Covert Recording, and (3) Beneficial Covert Recording.

Conclusion

Clinicians have varied experiences and responses when a patient covertly records a clinical encounter. Findings indicate that nuanced strategies may be required to support clinicians to manage covert recording, whilst balancing the needs of patients.