IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v200y2018icp218-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating relevance in pre-operative assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Benwell, Bethan
  • Rhys, Catrin S.

Abstract

Preoperative assessments provide an essential clinical risk assessment aimed at identifying patient risks and requirements prior to surgery. As such they require effective and sensitive information-gathering skills. In addition to physical examination, the preoperative assessment includes a series of routine questions assessing a patient's fitness for surgery. These questions are typically designed to elicit minimal, ‘no problem’ responses, but patients sometimes produce expanded responses that extend beyond the projected information. Our analysis reveals that troubles-telling is often invoked by both nurses and patients as an effective, patient-centred resource for negotiating the medical relevance of patients' concerns in these contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Benwell, Bethan & Rhys, Catrin S., 2018. "Negotiating relevance in pre-operative assessments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 218-226.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:200:y:2018:i:c:p:218-226
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618300340
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.034?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. Robinson, Jeffrey D. & Heritage, John, 2005. "The structure of patients' presenting concerns: the completion relevance of current symptoms," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 481-493, July.
    2. Denvir, Paul M., 2012. "When patients portray their conduct as normal and healthy: An interactional challenge for thorough substance use history taking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1650-1659.
    3. Pilnick, Alison & Coleman, Tim, 2006. "Death, depression and 'defensive expansion': Closing down smoking as an issue for discussion in GP consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2500-2512, May.
    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. Dooley, Jemima & Barnes, Dr Rebecca, 2022. "Negotiating ‘the problem’ in GP home visits to people with dementia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    2. Wheat, H. & Barnes, R.K. & Aveyard, P. & Stevenson, F. & Begh, R., 2022. "Brief opportunistic interventions by general practitioners to promote smoking cessation: A conversation analytic study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    3. Heritage, John & McArthur, Amanda, 2019. "The diagnostic moment: A study in US primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 262-271.
    4. Sterponi, Laura & Zucchermaglio, Cristina & Fatigante, Marilena & Alby, Francesca, 2019. "Structuring times and activities in the oncology visit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 211-222.
    5. Wei, Wan, 2024. "Beyond the patient-doctor dyad: Examining “other” patient engagement in Traditional Chinese Medicine consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    6. Jin, Ying & Kim, Younhee, 2022. "Dietary advice in chronic care: Comparing traditional Chinese and western medicine practiced in mainland China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(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:200:y:2018:i:c:p:218-226. 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.