IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v333y2023ics0277953623004689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Storytelling and affiliation between healthcare staff in Schwartz Round interactions: A conversation analytic study

Author

Listed:
  • Atkins, Sarah
  • Pilnick, Alison
  • Maben, Jill
  • Thompson, Laura

Abstract

It is well known that the demands of working in healthcare can take a psychological toll on staff. Schwartz Centre Rounds are an intervention aimed at supporting staff wellbeing through providing a forum to talk about the emotional, social and ethical complexities of such work, employing facilitated storytelling and group discussion to try and achieve this. However, while prior research, through extensive interviews and surveys, has found Schwartz Rounds to be effective in fostering compassion and wellbeing amongst participants, the talk that occurs within Schwartz Rounds themselves has not been explored. One mechanism that has been considered in how Schwartz Rounds function is the creation of a ‘counter-cultural’, conversational space, suggesting the nature of the interactions themselves may be important in achieving their beneficial effects. Using conversation analytic (CA) methods, we examine Schwartz Rounds in the UK to address, at a detailed micro-level, how sequences of talk work to accomplish the key aims of this setting. Five separate one-hour Schwartz Rounds were recorded across three UK hospital Trusts, between January 2019 and February 2020. Our analysis addresses how panellists tell their stories in a way that emphasises the uniqueness of their experience but also provides a generalisable emotional ‘upshot’ and ‘stance’ for the audience to later respond to. We then focus in on how audience members are able to respond to these stories affiliatively, offering endorsements, generalisations and second stories. Drawing on prior CA literature examining support groups and psychotherapy, we consider how the format of Schwarz Rounds creates important opportunities for interpersonal affiliation in this context. Considering these interactional features alongside other research findings on Schwartz Rounds, we discuss how opportunities for interactional affiliation may be central to their success, with implications for how these interactions can be best facilitated.

Suggested Citation

  • Atkins, Sarah & Pilnick, Alison & Maben, Jill & Thompson, Laura, 2023. "Storytelling and affiliation between healthcare staff in Schwartz Round interactions: A conversation analytic study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:333:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623004689
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623004689
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116111?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. Pilnick, Alison & James, Deborah, 2013. "“I'm thrilled that you see that”: Guiding parents to see success in interactions with children with deafness and autistic spectrum disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 89-101.
    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. Barnes, Rebecca K. & Jepson, Marcus & Thomas, Clare & Jackson, Sue & Metcalfe, Chris & Kessler, David & Cramer, Helen, 2018. "Using conversation analytic methods to assess fidelity to a talk-based healthcare intervention for frequently attending patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 38-50.

    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:333:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623004689. 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.