IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v118y2014icp17-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record

Author

Listed:
  • Swinglehurst, Deborah

Abstract

The introduction of computers into general practice settings has profoundly changed the dynamics of the clinical consultation. Previous research exploring the impact of the computer (in what has been termed the ‘triadic’ consultation) has shown that computer use and communication between doctor and patient are intricately coordinated and inseparable. Swinglehurst et al. have recently been critical of the ongoing tendency within health communication research to focus on ‘the computer’ as a relatively simple ‘black box’, or as a material presence in the consultation. By re-focussing on the electronic patient record (EPR) and conceptualising this as a complex collection of silent but consequential voices, they have opened up new and more nuanced possibilities for analysis. This orientation makes visible a tension between the immediate contingencies of the interaction as it unfolds moment-by-moment and the more standardised, institutional demands which are embedded in the EPR (‘dilemma of attention’). In this paper I extend this work, presenting an in-depth examination of how participants in the consultation manage this tension. I used linguistic ethnographic methods to study 54 video recorded consultations from a dataset collected between 2007 and 2008 in two UK general practices, combining microanalysis of the consultation with ethnographic attention to the wider organisational and institutional context. My analysis draws on the theoretical work of Erving Goffman and Mikhail Bakhtin, incorporating attention to the ‘here and now’ of the interaction as well as an appreciation of the ‘distributed’ nature of the EPR, its role in hosting and circulating new voices, and in mediating participants' talk and social practices. It reveals – in apparently fleeting moments of negotiation and contestation – the extent to which the EPR shapes the dynamic construction, display and circulation of authority in the contemporary consultation.

Suggested Citation

  • Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2014. "Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 17-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:118:y:2014:i:c:p:17-26
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614004742
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ariss, Steven M., 2009. "Asymmetrical knowledge claims in general practice consultations with frequently attending patients: Limitations and opportunities for patient participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 908-919, September.
    2. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    2. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    3. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    4. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    5. Kath MacDonald & Lindesay Irvine & Margaret Coulter Smith, 2015. "An exploration of partnership through interactions between young ‘expert’ patients with cystic fibrosis and healthcare professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(23-24), pages 3528-3537, December.
    6. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    7. Ayuandini, Sherria, 2017. "Finger Pricks and Blood Vials: How doctors medicalize ‘cultural’ solutions to demedicalize the ‘broken’ hymen in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 61-68.
    8. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    9. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. de Kok, B.C. & Widdicombe, S. & Pilnick, A. & Laurier, E., 2018. "Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 17-25.
    11. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Kelly-Irving, Michelle & Delpierre, Cyrille & Schieber, Anne-Cécile & Lepage, Benoit & Rolland, Christine & Afrité, Anissa & Pascal, Jean & Cases, Chantal & Lombrail, Pierre & Lang, Thierry, 2011. "Do general practitioners overestimate the health of their patients with lower education?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(9), pages 1416-1421.
    13. Lian, Olaug S. & Nettleton, Sarah & Wifstad, Åge & Dowrick, Christopher, 2021. "Negotiating uncertainty in clinical encounters: A narrative exploration of naturally occurring primary care consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    14. Smailhodzic, Edin & Boonstra, Albert & Langley, David J., 2021. "Social media enabled interactions in healthcare: Towards a taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    15. Tutton, Richard, 2012. "Personalizing medicine: Futures present and past," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1721-1728.
    16. Caronia, Letizia & Saglietti, Marzia & Chieregato, Arturo, 2020. "Challenging the interprofessional epistemic boundaries: The practices of informing in nurse-physician interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. McArthur, Amanda, 2018. "Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 190-198.
    18. Sharon Ee Ling Quah & Alexandra Ridgway, 2022. "The woman writer's body: Multiplicity, neoliberalism, and feminist resistance," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 44-57, January.
    19. Burson, Randall C. & Familusi, Olivia O. & Clapp, Justin T., 2022. "Imagining the ‘structural’ in medical education and practice in the United States: A curricular investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    20. Brown, Eliza, 2020. "Projected diagnosis, anticipatory medicine, and uncertainty: How medical providers ‘rule out’ potential pregnancy in contraceptive counseling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:118:y:2014:i:c:p:17-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.