医学检查的规范性:二级医疗“新问题”咨询中的常规检查排序

IF 3 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Research on Language and Social Interaction Pub Date : 2020-08-14 DOI:10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768
Merran Toerien, C. Jackson, M. Reuber
{"title":"医学检查的规范性:二级医疗“新问题”咨询中的常规检查排序","authors":"Merran Toerien, C. Jackson, M. Reuber","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How does ordering a test fit into “new problem” medical consultations? Responding to calls for studies of the overall structural organization of consultations beyond primary care, this article depicts the organization of new problem consultations observed in two large neuroscience centers in the UK. This shows that—in addition to Robinson’s widely cited four main activities (establishing the reason for the visit, gathering information, delivering a diagnosis, recommending treatment)—test ordering is oriented to as an additional, normative activity. We show this numerically (tests were ordered in over 60% of our 65 new problem consultations) and by analyzing how participants orient to the activity of test ordering even when neurologists decide against testing. We argue that test ordering is a distinct activity, which, despite being treatment-oriented, displaces treatment in the here and now. Test ordering is thus consequential for progressivity, serving as both bridge and barrier to accomplishing the overarching medical project. Data are in British English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Normativity of Medical Tests: Test Ordering as a Routine Activity in “New Problem” Consultations in Secondary Care\",\"authors\":\"Merran Toerien, C. Jackson, M. Reuber\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT How does ordering a test fit into “new problem” medical consultations? Responding to calls for studies of the overall structural organization of consultations beyond primary care, this article depicts the organization of new problem consultations observed in two large neuroscience centers in the UK. This shows that—in addition to Robinson’s widely cited four main activities (establishing the reason for the visit, gathering information, delivering a diagnosis, recommending treatment)—test ordering is oriented to as an additional, normative activity. We show this numerically (tests were ordered in over 60% of our 65 new problem consultations) and by analyzing how participants orient to the activity of test ordering even when neurologists decide against testing. We argue that test ordering is a distinct activity, which, despite being treatment-oriented, displaces treatment in the here and now. Test ordering is thus consequential for progressivity, serving as both bridge and barrier to accomplishing the overarching medical project. Data are in British English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785768","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

订购检查如何适应“新问题”医学咨询?响应对咨询的整体结构组织超越初级保健的研究呼吁,这篇文章描述了在英国两个大型神经科学中心观察到的新问题咨询的组织。这表明,除了罗宾逊被广泛引用的四项主要活动(确定就诊原因、收集信息、提供诊断、推荐治疗)之外,测试排序也被视为一项额外的、规范的活动。我们用数字来证明这一点(在我们的65个新问题咨询中,超过60%的人安排了测试),并通过分析参与者如何适应测试安排的活动,即使神经学家决定不进行测试。我们认为,测试排序是一种独特的活动,尽管是面向治疗的,但在此时此地取代了治疗。因此,测试顺序对进步性至关重要,既是完成总体医疗项目的桥梁,也是障碍。数据是英式英语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Normativity of Medical Tests: Test Ordering as a Routine Activity in “New Problem” Consultations in Secondary Care
ABSTRACT How does ordering a test fit into “new problem” medical consultations? Responding to calls for studies of the overall structural organization of consultations beyond primary care, this article depicts the organization of new problem consultations observed in two large neuroscience centers in the UK. This shows that—in addition to Robinson’s widely cited four main activities (establishing the reason for the visit, gathering information, delivering a diagnosis, recommending treatment)—test ordering is oriented to as an additional, normative activity. We show this numerically (tests were ordered in over 60% of our 65 new problem consultations) and by analyzing how participants orient to the activity of test ordering even when neurologists decide against testing. We argue that test ordering is a distinct activity, which, despite being treatment-oriented, displaces treatment in the here and now. Test ordering is thus consequential for progressivity, serving as both bridge and barrier to accomplishing the overarching medical project. Data are in British English.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal publishes the highest quality empirical and theoretical research bearing on language as it is used in interaction. Researchers in communication, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, linguistic anthropology and ethnography are likely to be the most active contributors, but we welcome submission of articles from the broad range of interaction researchers. Published papers will normally involve the close analysis of naturally-occurring interaction. The journal is also open to theoretical essays, and to quantitative studies where these are tied closely to the results of naturalistic observation.
期刊最新文献
The Interactional Histories of Performance Bodies: From Describing to Depicting Proposed Ideas at Opera Rehearsals A Question of Embeddedness: On Clausal and Phrasal Responses to Specifying WH-Questions in Danish Talk-in-Interaction Formulations in French Emergency Calls Transferred to Physicians Making Arrangements: A Sketch of a ‘Big Package’ Emanuel A. Schegloff 1937–2024
×
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