IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v315y2022ics0277953622007997.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing the C-reactive protein point-of-care test: A conversation analytic study of primary care consultations for respiratory tract infection

Author

Listed:
  • Lindström, Anna K.B.
  • Tängdén, Thomas

Abstract

The C-reactive protein point-of-care test (CRP-POCT) can help distinguish between viral and bacterial infection and has been promoted as a strategy to improve antimicrobial stewardship. The test is widely used in Sweden. National guidelines advocate conservative use in primary care consultations with patients presenting with symptoms of respiratory tract infection (RTI). Previous research suggests low adherence to guidelines. We provide new insights into the communication surrounding the CRP-POCT by documenting how the decision to administer the test is interactionally motivated and organized in Swedish primary care. The data consists of video-recordings of RTI-consultations. A CRP-POCT was performed in nearly two thirds of the consultations and our study is focused on a subset where the test is ordered by a medical doctor. We find that doctors order the test during the transition from or after physical examination, a practice that aligns with national guidelines. Guidelines indicate that pathological findings from physical examination are warrants for ordering the test but we only found one example where this was communicated to the patient. A more prevalent pattern was that doctors ordered the CRP-POCT even though the outcome of the physical examination was assessed as normal. Our analyses of these show that doctors can provide the rationale for ordering the test in subtle ways and that failure to provide a rationale is treated as a noticeable absence. We also find that the CRP-POCT can be used to reconcile the contrast between the normal physical examination and the patient's problem presentation. Doctors can also order the test in ways that position the CRP-POCT as criterial for antibiotic prescription. Consultations where the patients described the symptoms as particularly severe and/or persistent were more likely to engender elaborate accounts than consultations where patients presented their symptoms as less problematic.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindström, Anna K.B. & Tängdén, Thomas, 2022. "Introducing the C-reactive protein point-of-care test: A conversation analytic study of primary care consultations for respiratory tract infection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:315:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622007997
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622007997
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115493?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. Heritage, John & Stivers, Tanya, 1999. "Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(11), pages 1501-1517, December.
    2. Zhao, Chunjuan & Ma, Wen, 2020. "Patient resistance towards clinicians’ diagnostic test-taking advice and its management in Chinese outpatient clinic interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    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. Chatwin, John & Kennedy, Anne & Firth, Adam & Povey, Andrew & Rogers, Anne & Sanders, Caroline, 2014. "How potentially serious symptom changes are talked about and managed in COPD clinical review consultations: A micro-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 120-136.
    2. Montenegro, Roberto E. & Dori-Hacohen, Gonen, 2020. "Morality in sugar talk: Presenting blood glucose levels in routine diabetes medical visits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    3. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    4. Dooley, Jemima & Barnes, Dr Rebecca, 2022. "Negotiating ‘the problem’ in GP home visits to people with dementia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Stefanie Lopriore & Amanda LeCouteur & Katie Ekberg & Stuart Ekberg, 2019. "“You'll have to be my eyes and ears”: A conversation analytic study of physical examination on a health helpline," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1-2), pages 330-339, January.
    6. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    7. Zhang, Xi & Wei, Xin & Zhang, Te & Tan, Yahe & Xu, Dongming & Ordóñez de Pablos, Patricia, 2023. "How platform-based internet hospital innovation affects doctors’ active stress coping efforts: The conservation of resource theory perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Paulus, Trena M. & Grubbs, Heather & Rice-Moran, Renee & Lester, Jessica N., 2023. "How student healthcare providers in a communication skills course respond to standardized patient resistance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    9. Turowetz, Jason, 2022. "Interaction order and the labeling of disorder: How parents mobilize personal knowledge in the clinic to resist medicalization of their children's behavior," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    10. Stivers, Tanya & Timmermans, Stefan, 2021. "Arriving at no: Patient pressure to prescribe antibiotics and physicians’ responses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    11. White, Anne Elizabeth Clark, 2020. "When and how do surgeons initiate noticings of additional concerns?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    12. Bridges, Susan & Drew, Paul & Zayts, Olga & McGrath, Colman & Yiu, Cynthia K.Y. & Wong, H.M. & Au, T.K.F., 2015. "Interpreter-mediated dentistry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 197-207.
    13. Zhang, Shuai & Cheng, Meili & Ma, Wen & Liu, Huashui & Zhao, Chunjuan, 2023. "Companion responses to diagnosis in Chinese outpatient clinical interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    14. Maynard, Douglas W., 2006. ""Does it mean I'm gonna die?": On meaning assessment in the delivery of diagnostic news," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1902-1916, April.
    15. Broom, Alex & Broom, Jennifer & Kirby, Emma, 2014. "Cultures of resistance? A Bourdieusian analysis of doctors' antibiotic prescribing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 81-88.
    16. Seale, Clive & Chaplin, Robert & Lelliott, Paul & Quirk, Alan, 2007. "Antipsychotic medication, sedation and mental clouding: An observational study of psychiatric consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 698-711, August.

    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:315:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622007997. 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.