Correcting medical decisions: a study in nurses' patient advocacy in (Finnish) hospital ward rounds.
Hospital ward rounds
Interprofessional decision‐making
conversation Analysis
Journal
Sociology of health & illness
ISSN: 1467-9566
Titre abrégé: Sociol Health Illn
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8205036
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
16
09
2019
revised:
13
03
2020
accepted:
22
06
2020
entrez:
18
1
2021
pubmed:
19
1
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
During daily hospital ward rounds, medical teams, led by doctors, assess the progress of an individual patient's health. It is widely reported in the research literature that nurses play a relatively passive role during these rounds, because although they may have valuable information about the patient's condition and progress, and indeed their role includes advocacy on behalf of their patients, nurses nevertheless can experience difficulties in participating during case constructions. Here we report an instance from a (gastro-surgical) ward round in a Finnish hospital, in which nurses played a key role in reversing a consultant's initial decision to discharge a patient. They did so not by directly challenging the consultant's opinion, but by employing indirect means to introduce their discrepant perspective: they provide descriptions and ask questions that draw attention to information that results in the doctor coming to a different assessment than theirs of the patient's condition, and a different decision about what should be done (the patient was not discharged from hospital). The encounter reported here is taken from a corpus of ward round discussions in a Finnish hospital. The method of our study is Conversation Analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33460158
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13159
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1709-1726Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL (SHIL).
Références
Arber, A. (2008) Team meetings in specialist palliative care: Asking questions as strategy within interprofessional interaction, Qualitative Health Research, 18, 10, 1323–35.
Barnes, R.K. (2019) Conversation analysis of communication in medical care: description and beyond, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52, 3, 300–15.
Caronia, L. and Saglietti, M. (2018) Knowledge and agency in interprofessional care: how nurses contribute to the case construction in an Intensive Care Unit, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32, 5, 592–602.
Collins, S., Drew, P., Watt, I. and Entwistle, V. (2005) ‘Unilateral’ and ‘bilateral’ practitioner approaches in decision‐making about treatment, Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2611–27.
D’Amour, D., Ferrada‐Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L. and Beaulieu, M.‐D., (2005) The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, supplement 1, 116–31.
Department of Health. (2012). Understanding the causes of failure. Archived 4th May 2012. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/Browsable/DH_4936329.
Drew, P. (1984) Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp 129–51
Drew, P. (1989) Recalling someone from the past. In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp 96–115.
Drew, P. (2003) Precision and exaggeration in interaction, American Sociological Review, 68, 917–38.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. and Penn, C. (2016) On failure to understand what the other is saying: accountability, incongruity and miscommunication. In Robinson, J. (ed.) Accountability in Social Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1961) Role distance. In Goffman, E. (ed.) Encounters. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp 73–134.
Hakulinen, A. (2001) On some uses of the discourse particle kyl(lä) in Finnish conversations. In Selting, M. and Couper‐Kuhlen, E. (eds.) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., et al. (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Hanks, R.G. (2005) Sphere of nursing advocacy model, Nursing Forum, 40, 75–8.
Hanks, R.G. (2008) The lived experience of nursing advocacy, Nursing Ethics, 15, 468–77.
Helmreich, R., Ashleigh, M. and Wilhelm, J. (1999) The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 1, 19–32.
Heritage, J. (2012) The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliott, M., Beckett, M.,, et al. (2007) Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 10, 1429–33.
Heritage, J. (2015) Well‐prefaced turns in English conversation: a conversation analytic perspective, Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.
Hill, K. (2003) The sound of silence: nurses’ non‐verbal interaction within the ward round, Nursing in Critical Care, 8, 6, 231–9.
Jefferson, G. (1990) List‐construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Lanham: University Press of America.
Jefferson, G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G.H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (2018) Remarks on ‘non‐correction’ in conversation. In Drew, P. and Bergmann, J. (eds) Repairing the Broken Surface of Talk: Correction and the Management of Problems in Speaking, Hearing and Understanding in Conversation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Josse‐Eklund, A., Jossebo, M., Sandin‐Bojö, A.‐K., Wilde‐Larsson, B., et al. (2014) Swedish nurses’ perceptions of influencers on patient advocacy: a phenomenographic study, Nursing Ethics, 21, 6, 673–83.
Koivisto, A. (2016) Receipting information as newsworthy vs. responding to redirection: finnish news particles aijaa and aha(a), Journal of Pragmatics, 104, 163–79.
Lane, D. (2006) Hierarchy, Complexity, Society. In Pumain, D. (ed.) Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences. New York: Springer‐Verlag.
Leino, K., Mattila, E., Collin, P. and Sand, J. (2017) The nurse as the discussion opener during ward rounds: an observation study in the wards of a Finnish university hospital, Journal of Nursing and Health Studies, 2, 2, 1–8.
Liu, W., Manias, E. and Gerdtz, M. (2012) Medication communication during ward rounds on medical wards: power relations and spatial practices, Health, 17, 113–34.
Manias, E. and Street, A. (2001) Nurse–doctor interactions during critical care ward rounds, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 442–50.
Mondada, L. (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space, Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 10, 1977–97.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims, Human Studies, 9, 2–3, 219–29.
Pomerantz, A. (1990) Conversation analytic claims, Communications Monographs, 57, 3, 231–5.
Robinson, J. (2003) An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patient participation, Health Communication, 15, 27–59.
Royal College of Physicians (2015) Ward Rounds in Medicine: Principles for Best Practice. Available at https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/ward‐rounds‐medicine‐principles‐best‐practice.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987) Analyzing single episodes of interaction: an exercise in conversation analysis, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–14.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self‐correction in the organization of repair in conversation, Language, 53, 361–82.
Schoeb, V., Staffoni, L. and Keel, S. (2018) Influence of interactional structure on patient’s participation during interprofessional discharge planning meetings in rehabilitations centers, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33, 5, 536–45.
Shaw, C., Stokoe, E., Gallagher, K., Aladangady, N.,, et al. (2016) Parental involvement in neonatal critical care decision‐making, Sociology of Health & Illness, 38, 8, 1217–42.
Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds) (2013) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley‐Blackwell.
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose and decide, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 297–321.
Stivers, T. (2005) Non‐antibiotic treatment recommendations: delivery formats and implications for parent resistance, Social Science & Medicine, 60, 949–64.
Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R., McCabe, R., et al. (2018) Treatment recommendations as actions, Health Communication, 33, 11, 1335–44.
Thompson, S.A., Fox, B.A. and Couper‐Kuhlen, E. (2015) Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toerien, M., Shaw, R. and Markus, R. (2013) Initiating decision‐making in neurology consultations: ‘Recommending’ versus ‘option‐listing’ and the implications for medical authority, Sociology of Health & Illness, 35, 6, 873–90.
Weber, H., Stöckli, M., Nübling, M. and Langewitz, W.A. (2007) Communication during ward rounds in Internal Medicine: An analysis of patient–nurse–physician interactions using RIAS, Patient Education and Counseling, 67, 343–8.