Framing the consultation: the role of the referral in surgeon-patient consultations.

This study describes and analyzes the impact of the referral process on communication at the beginning of surgeon-patient consultations. We used conversation analysis to analyze the opening interactional activities of surgeon-patient consultations in New Zealand. This study focuses on 20 video-recorded consultations recorded between 2004 and 2006. Participants in surgeon-patient consultations began referred consultations by discussing the referral letter in what we have termed "referral recognition sequences." These sequences are coconstructed activities that can be implicit or explicit and address the minimized epistemic distance between surgeons and patients that is caused by the referral process. These sequences can be simple or complex, and this complexity may be determined by the quality of the referral letter received. Acknowledgment of the referral letter assists in achieving alignment between surgeon, patient, and referring doctor regarding the presenting problem. If this alignment is not achieved, progressivity of the consultation is affected, as there is disagreement as to why the patient is seeing the surgeon. This research shows that to assist in the progressivity of surgeon-patient consultations, referral letters should be clear and patients made aware of the reason for referral. Surgeons should also overtly address the minimized epistemic distance caused by the referral letter to ensure patients present their problems in full.

Understanding communication between surgeon and patient in outpatient consultations.

BACKGROUND: There is an assumption that there is a similarity between surgeon-patient and primary care consultations. Yet, surgeon communication has had far less analytic attention than its primary care counterparts. Therefore, this assumption of similarity (and the proposition here of dissimilarity) has yet to be evidenced through detailed interactional analysis. METHODS: Conversation analysis (CA) is a methodology used to understand both mundane and institutional interactions. Using CA, we have developed an understanding of surgeon-patient interactions in outpatient clinic settings in New Zealand. Rather than attempting to determine what 'bad' communication is, we describe and analyse what occurs routinely in surgeon-patient consultations, particularly how these interactions are built up by both patient and doctor. RESULTS: This research shows that while surgeon-patient consultations share some similarities to the overall structure of primary care consultations, there are two unique structures that occur in surgical consultations. These structures follow a logical progression of activities and are influenced by the type of visit (referred versus follow-up). DISCUSSION: This article summarizes the first comprehensive description of the overall interactional structure of surgeon-patient consultations. It demonstrates that surgeon-patient consultations are structurally distinct from primary care consultations. This key finding has implications for surgeon-specific research and education, highlighting the need to question current assumptions in communication training and in clinical practice.

Challenges to alcohol and other drug discussions in the general practice consultation.

BACKGROUND: There is a widely held expectation that GPs will routinely use opportunities to provide opportunistic screening and brief intervention for alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse, a major cause of preventable death and morbidity. AIM: To explore how opportunities arise for AOD discussion in GP consultations and how that advice is delivered. DESIGN: Analysis of video-recorded primary care consultations. SETTING: New Zealand General Practice. METHODS: Interactional content analysis of AOD consultations between 15 GP's and 56 patients identified by keyword search from a bank of digital video consultation recordings. RESULTS: AOD-related words were found in almost one-third (56/171) of the GP consultation transcripts (22 female and 34 male patients). The AOD dialogue varied from brief mention to pertinent advice. Tobacco and alcohol discussion featured more often than misuse of anxiolytics, night sedation, analgesics and caffeine, with only one direct enquiry about other (unspecified) recreational drug use. Discussion was associated with interactional delicacy on the part of both doctor and patient, manifested by verbal and non-verbal discomfort, use of closed statements, understatement, wry humour and sudden topic change. CONCLUSIONS: Mindful prioritization of competing demands, time pressures, topic delicacy and the acuteness of the presenting complaint can impede use of AOD discussion opportunities. Guidelines and tools for routine screening and brief intervention in primary care do not accommodate this reality. Possible responses to enhance AOD conversations within general practice settings are discussed.