Negotiation, temporality and context - a qualitative study of the clinical encounter

Marie Broholm-Jørgensen, Nina Kamstrup-Larsen, A. D. Guassora, S. Reventlow, S. Dalton, T. Tjørnhøj‐Thomsen
{"title":"Negotiation, temporality and context - a qualitative study of the clinical encounter","authors":"Marie Broholm-Jørgensen, Nina Kamstrup-Larsen, A. D. Guassora, S. Reventlow, S. Dalton, T. Tjørnhøj‐Thomsen","doi":"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background, aims and objectives: In general practice, obtaining patients’ perspectives and finding common ground with patients has for many years been a core value. Negotiation is often associated with agenda setting as well as shared decision-making (SDM) and finding common ground between two parties. This study aims to connect the social meeting between general practitioner (GP) and patient with the organisational, physical and temporal contexts of general practice, to account for the possibilities of negotiation. Methods: We employed a qualitative study design which combined observations of clinical encounters and semi-structured interviews of GPs as well as of patients. The empirical material was collected in relation to the intervention project Check-In . The intervention examined the effectiveness of an invitation of patients with no formal education beyond the mandatory 7-9 years of schooling to a pre-scheduled preventive health check at his or her GP. Results: Overall, the findings in this study reveal how the wider context influences the degree to which time is spent on negotiation and finding common ground in the clinical encounter. Conclusion: This study shows that negotiation is sensitive to both the contexts of patients’ everyday lives as well as the contexts of the clinical encounter. In this way, finding common ground between GP and patients varies in different social contexts as the temporal conditions of the wider contexts influences and are influenced by negotiations between GPs and patients.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"1 1","pages":"334-343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background, aims and objectives: In general practice, obtaining patients’ perspectives and finding common ground with patients has for many years been a core value. Negotiation is often associated with agenda setting as well as shared decision-making (SDM) and finding common ground between two parties. This study aims to connect the social meeting between general practitioner (GP) and patient with the organisational, physical and temporal contexts of general practice, to account for the possibilities of negotiation. Methods: We employed a qualitative study design which combined observations of clinical encounters and semi-structured interviews of GPs as well as of patients. The empirical material was collected in relation to the intervention project Check-In . The intervention examined the effectiveness of an invitation of patients with no formal education beyond the mandatory 7-9 years of schooling to a pre-scheduled preventive health check at his or her GP. Results: Overall, the findings in this study reveal how the wider context influences the degree to which time is spent on negotiation and finding common ground in the clinical encounter. Conclusion: This study shows that negotiation is sensitive to both the contexts of patients’ everyday lives as well as the contexts of the clinical encounter. In this way, finding common ground between GP and patients varies in different social contexts as the temporal conditions of the wider contexts influences and are influenced by negotiations between GPs and patients.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谈判、时间性和语境——临床遭遇的定性研究
背景、目的和目标:在全科实践中,多年来,获得患者的观点并与患者找到共同点一直是核心价值。谈判通常与议程设置、共同决策(SDM)和寻找双方的共同点有关。本研究旨在将全科医生(GP)和患者之间的社会会议与全科医生的组织、物理和时间背景联系起来,以解释谈判的可能性。方法:我们采用定性研究设计,结合临床接触观察和对全科医生和患者的半结构化访谈。收集了与干预项目Check-In相关的经验材料。干预措施检查了邀请未接受过7-9年强制性教育的患者到其家庭医生处预先安排的预防性健康检查的有效性。结果:总的来说,本研究的发现揭示了更广泛的背景如何影响在临床遭遇中花费在谈判和寻找共同点上的时间。结论:本研究表明,协商对患者的日常生活情境和临床遭遇情境都很敏感。通过这种方式,在全科医生和患者之间寻找共同点在不同的社会背景下是不同的,因为更广泛的背景的时间条件影响并受全科医生和患者之间的谈判的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1