Search

This article investigates miscommunication in sequences of talk where an oncologist asks about patients' co-morbidities, that is, their other illnesses beyond cancer. Using conversation analysis, we examine ways in which the participants identify and manage two sources of miscommunication: a divergence in the doctor's and the patient's understandings about the scope of the question; and a divergence in the doctor's and the patient's (and sometimes their companion's) understandings about the matters that the question targets. Our findings have implications for practice, highlighting ways in which clinicians and patients can manage these sources of miscommunication. These include practices to retrospectively or pre-emptively manage ambiguities and to check the accuracy of patients' answers. Additionally, our study addresses some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of miscommunication. Our data consist of 25 video-recorded first consultations in an Italian hospital; the participants speak Italian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnomethodology research has systematically investigated discursive practices of categorisation, looking at the various ways by which social actors ascribe both themselves and others to identity categories to accomplish various kinds of social actions. Drawing on a data corpus of oncological visits collected in an Italian hospital, involving both native and non-native patients, the present work analyses how participants in these intercultural medical encounters invoke and make relevant social identity categories by the marking of collective pronouns in their talk. Our results showed that whilst institutional identities (e.g. those of the doctors, the local hospital or the Tumour Board) prevailed, categorial formulations related to cultural or linguistic identities were rarely displayed in interactions with non-native patients. Conversational participants made very little of their linguistical or cultural background and when they did so, their cultural and linguistic identities were deployed for rhetorical and pragmatical aims, such as testing and negotiating common knowledge and epistemic authority. This study shows how even speakers' minimal lexical choices, such as marked pronouns, impact the negotiation of meanings and activities in life-saving sites such as oncological visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Companions to medical visits have been alternatively viewed as members who "support" or "inhibit" and "interfere" with the doctor-patient interaction. One way of looking at the companions' contribution to medical visits is by coding roles or functions of their communicative behavior. Our paper aims at reconsidering these findings and analyzing how the companion participation is a local and sequential accomplishment, changing from time to time in the consultation. The paper relies upon an overall collection of 58 videorecordings of first oncological visits. Visits were conducted in two different hospitals, one of which a University hospital, and by different oncologists, including both senior professionals and (in the second setting) medical students in oncology. Visits were fully transcribed according to the Jeffersonian conventions and authors examined the transcripts and video according to the methodology of Conversation Analysis. The aim of the paper focused on how patient's companions orient and contribute to the accomplishment of the different aims and activities at different stages of the visit as an institutional speech event. The multimodal analysis of turns and actions (such as, gaze shifts, prosodic modulation, bodily arrangements), and the close examination of the sequential and temporal arrangements of companions' and their co-participants' turns revealed that companions finely attune to the multiparty framework of the encounter and the institutional constraints that govern the oncological first visit. Overall, results show two relevant features: that companions act as to preserve the doctor-patient interaction and to maintain the patient as the most responsible and legitimate agent in the interaction; that companions' contributions are relevant to the activities that sequentially unfold at different stages in the consultation (e.g., history taking, problem presentation, treatment recommendation etc.). The study complements earlier findings on the companion's roles, showing how these are highly mobile, multimodal and multiparty accomplishments, and they are tied to the specific contingencies of the visit. The results solicit to consider the value of multimodal analysis in understanding the complexity of multiparty communication in medical setting, and make it usable also in medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper examines a previously neglected phenomenon in doctor-patient interaction studies, i.e. the achievement of mutual disengagement-a specific state of coordination, in which participants suspend reciprocal gaze and turn into separate axes of involvement. In the specialized setting of the oncology visit, which we consider in this study, mutual disengagement is linked to important tasks that the oncologist has to carry out, notably the scrutiny of the histological exam during the diagnostic assessment phase.Methods: Our data corpus includes 56 video-recorded oncology visits. We employ conversation analysis to discern how mutual disengagement is achieved, sustained and ended.Results: Our analysis shows that suspension of mutual engagement is a joint accomplishment that requires intersubjective cooperation. It also reveals that when talk and reciprocal engagement are suspended, intersubjective alignment is more vulnerable to breakdown.Conclusion: Our findings eschew a characterization of the oncologist as solo arbiter of the interactional exchange. An alignment with the patient is key to the felicitous accomplishment of the visit. We also suggest that a successful medical encounter is not only characterized by harmonious verbal communication, between doctor and patient, but also by felicitous pauses in their joint engagement.Practice Implications: In building a room of one's own, the oncologist has the responsibility to co-construct with the patient an experience of interactional attunement and mutual understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In this paper we examine how doctor and patient coordinate actions in interaction towards the smooth accomplishment of the medical visit. Such coordination entails primarily the management of time and praxis, i.e. the apportionment of time to the tasks to be completed during the visit; and it is not an easy enterprise, for a number of reasons: 1) the tasks to be carried out during the visit are not familiar in equal measure to doctor and patient; 2) the extent of attention to be devoted to each task cannot be fully determined in advance but requires ongoing judgment and calibration; 3) generally, the timeframe of the visit is relatively limited. Our ethnographic and conversation analytic study of oncological visits shows that doctor and patient rely on a range of semiotic resources to achieve mutual understanding and coordinated actions. In particular, our analysis has identified textual artifacts and metapragmatic utterances as key semiotic components in the coordination and negotiation of the temporal trajectories and courses of actions that constitute and traverse the oncology visit. Highlights • The structuring of time and activity in oncology visits was studied. • Ethnographic observation and conversation analysis of videorecordings were carried out. • The structuring of time and activity is a joint accomplishment by doctor and patient. • Textual artifacts and metapragmatic utterances are the key semiotic resources used. • Effective management of visits' timing may be more beneficial than having more time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on conversation analyses of oncology consultations collected in Italy, the article examines the communication practices used to recommend treatments. We found that the oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation ( TR) for high-risk patients in terms of a 'mandatory' choice and for low-risk patients as an 'optional' type of decision. In the first case the doctor presses to reach a decision during the visit while in the second case leaves the decision open-ended. Results show that high-risk patients have less time to decide, are pressured towards choosing an option, but have more opportunities for involvement in TR during the visit. Low-risk patients instead have more time and autonomy to make a choice, but they are also less involved in the decision-making in the visit time. Moreover, we document that TR is organised through sequential activities in which the oncologist informs the patient of alternative therapeutic options while at the same time building a case for the kind of treatment she/he believes to be best for the patient's health. We suggest that in this field risk plays a key role in decision-making which should be better understood with further studies and taken into account in the debate on shared decision-making and patient-centred communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: the article analyzes how a doctor delivers diagnoses and recommends treatment in a set of post-surgical oncological visits. The pattern of activities are explored in two different cases: when all diagnostic information is available, and when information is still missing.Methods: The data consist of 12 video-recorded visits of breast cancer patients to a senior oncologist. Conversation analysis is employed to analyze sequences in which the delivery of diagnosis and treatment recommendation unfold.Results: The oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation as a logical consequence deriving from the available diagnostic information. In cases when definitive diagnostic information on the cancer type is missing, the oncologist opts to anticipate hypothetical diagnostic scenarios, and to draw the therapeutic alternatives as logical outcomes envisionable from each of the different scenarios.Conclusion: The communicative practice appears functional to encourage the patients' acceptance of a single treatment option rather than present the patients to and involve them in deliberating over multiple available treatment alternatives.Practice Implications: Rather than a normative adoption of existing protocols of communication in cancer care, a better understanding of communication practices in use can help practitioners to reflect upon and make intentional choices about different arrangements for the patient's participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variety, complexity and uncertainty in the therapy outcomes of cancer illness make the treatment recommendation (TR) in oncology a "monumentally difficult task". Previous studies have distinguished unilateral and bilateral formats of treatment recommendations, accordingly to whether, or to what extent, the patient's perspective is included in the consideration of therapeutic options. Others have also shown how the oncologists' presentation of therapeutic options varied accordingly to the severity of the diagnosis and the availability of alternatives. Yet, no study has systemically dentified and compared components of treatment recommendation in oncology on a common set of patients and clinicians. This paper analyzes how different options in breast cancer treatments - radiotherapy, hormone therapy and chemotherapy - are presented and discussed in a set of 12 first post-surgical breast cancer visits carried out by two oncologists of high experience and seniority in two Italian hospitals. Treatment recommendation sequences involving these three option types were analyzed using the methods of conversation analysis. They were also coded for the mention of side effects and treatment burden, and for whether consent to the recommendation was invited, or expressed by the patient. Results show that radiotherapy is presented as presupposed as an extension of surgery and is not further discussed, and hormone therapy is delivered as good news and as not implying any health or lifestyle burdens. Treatment burdens were raised in the much more extensive discussions of chemotherapy, which were also accompanied by a higher chance that the patient was asked for consent to therapy. Implications are drawn as regards the extent to which clinical practice meets theory in communication protocols available in oncology, and how to consider the doctor-patient partnership and the concept of shared decision-making in such an encounter. • Oncologists deliver recommendation for different cancer treatments in different ways. • Radiotherapy is presented as presupposed, hormonetherapy is delivered as good news. • Oncologists anticipate the patient's burden only in chemotherapy. • There is a gap between protocols and communication practices in oncology. • Consent -gaining process needs be followed across time and settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]