Tailored opening questions to the context of using medical questionnaires: Qualitative analysis in first-visit consultations.

Background: Communication skills required for doctors do not consist of simple uses of particular linguistic forms but include uses that are sensitive to the interactional context. In consultations where the doctors have pre-existing information about their patients, this can complicate the context of problem solicitation. We investigated how doctors tailor opening questions to a context in which they get pre-existing information from a medical questionnaire (MQ) filled out by the patients. Methods: The data for this study were 87 video recordings of first visits to the department of general medicine at a university hospital in Japan. We qualitatively analyzed doctors' practices in problem solicitation in an opening phase using conversation analysis and triangulated it with quantitative analysis. Results: Open-ended questions accounted for 26.4% of opening questions. Among the closed-ended questions, 75.0% were confirming questions about symptoms. In cases with open-ended questions, doctors minimized the relevance of the MQ to problem solicitation by giving license to repeat the description from the MQ. In cases with closed-ended questions, doctors highlighted the relevance of the MQ by sharing the MQ. Through these practices, they avoided patients' possible confusion about problem presentation while simultaneously maximizing the possibility of soliciting the patients' narratives. Conclusions: Doctors adjusted the level of relevance of pre-existing information to problem solicitation through both verbal and nonverbal management of the MQ. It will be useful to instruct such context-dependent practices to improve communication skills in medical school curriculum.

Recommending no further treatment: Gatekeeping work of generalists at a Japanese university hospital.

In medical decision-making, doctors have to take into consideration whether patients' expectations can be satisfied while appropriately allocating medical resources. This study explores how recommendations for no further treatment, or gate-closing recommendations, are resisted by patients and how doctors react to resistance in outpatient consultations at a university hospital in Japan. We show how the type of patient resistance shapes doctors' reactions. Problem-focused resistance problematizes the doctor's understanding of the patient's problem or the treatment itself without focusing on the gate-closing aspect of a recommendation, and is met with doctors' persuasion through diagnosis-based accounts. Provider-focused resistance focuses on the gate-closing aspect of a recommendation, and leads doctors to manage their dual roles as patient advocate and resource steward. Two subtypes of provider-focused resistance further shape this work differently. Unwillingness-focused resistance is met with persuasion mainly through institution-based accounts. Unavailability-focused resistance is met with a concession. Doctors systematically respond to patients' resistance in order to reach an agreement during decision-making. They take measures to reconcile their dual roles, and orient themselves toward the implicit rationale of gatekeeping, which has a moral nature.

Why this clinic now? A context-sensitive aspect of accounting for visits.

In presenting problems in medical consultations, patients face the task of justifying their visit to the doctor. Previous studies have shown that patients establish the legitimacy of their visit by characterizing their problem as "doctorable" and presenting themselves as reasonable patients (Halkowski, 2006; Heritage and Robinson, 2006). This study explores a context-sensitive aspect of this justification issue by analyzing patients' first visits to a department of general medicine under the Japanese "free access" system. Patients are shown to present their problem in a way that conveys its relevance to the particular medical setting: they characterize their problem as suitable for relatively high-level medical care or as not easily falling under other specialties. The patient's problem's relevance to the setting is treated as normative in that participants take measures to remedy the possible mismatch between the problem and the setting. The institutional arrangement of the Japanese free access system is "talked into being" as a relevant context for the consultations through the practices participants use to establish the legitimacy of their visits.

Patients' practices for taking the initiative in decision-making in outpatient psychiatric consultations.

In spite of increasing advocacy for patients' participation in psychiatric decision-making, there has been little research on how patients actually participate in decision-making in psychiatric consultations. This study explores how patients take the initiative in decision-making over treatment in outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, we analyze 85 video-recorded ongoing consultations and find that patients select between two practices for taking the initiative in decision-making: making explicit requests for a treatment and displaying interest in a treatment without explicitly requesting it. A close inspection of transcribed interaction reveals that patients make explicit requests under the circumstances where they believe the candidate treatment is appropriate for their condition, whereas they merely display interest in a treatment when they are not certain about its appropriateness. By fitting practices to take the initiative in decision-making with the way they describe their current condition, patients are optimally managing their desire for particular treatments and the validity of their initiative actions. In conclusion, we argue that the orderly use of the two practices is one important resource for patients' participation in treatment decision-making.

Fitting proposals to their sequential environment: a comparison of turn designs for proposing treatment in ongoing outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan.

This study is an attempt to describe an interactional strategy that psychiatrists use in making decisions for treatment in ongoing outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using conversation analysis (CA), we compare sequential environments where psychiatrists use two turn designs for proposing a treatment: the inclusive 'we' form (for example 'let's' and 'how about') and the declarative evaluation (for example, 'it might be better'). The inclusive 'we' form is used to create the moment for decision when the sequential environment is ready for decision-making. The declarative evaluation is used to propose a treatment cautiously when the sequential environment is not yet ready for decision-making. Taken together, psychiatrists fit the turn design of a proposal to its sequential environment in such a way as to display their attention to the patients' perspectives. In conclusion, we argue that our finding provides further evidence for the claim made by a growing body of CA research that, unlike the traditional sociological understanding of doctor-patient interaction, doctors do not simply impose their perspectives upon the patients but steer medical encounters to their preferred direction by orienting to the patients' perspectives.