| Comparison of face-to-face and telephone consultations in primary care: qualitative analysis. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 20423575 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that telephone consultations in general practice are typically shorter than face-to-face consultations and that fewer problems are presented in them. AIM: To compare the communicative practices of doctors and patients in face-to-face and telephone consultations, in order to understand the contrasts between the two consulting modes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Conversation analysis. SETTING: Eight NHS GP surgeries in Scotland. METHOD: Transcription and conversation analysis of 32 face-to-face and 33 telephone consultations. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen GPs and 65 patients. RESULTS: There are no underlying contrasts between the communicative practices used in face-to-face and telephone consultations. Telephone consultations are typically used by patients to deal with a limited range of single-issue concerns, whereas a wide range of different problem types is dealt with in face-to-face consultations. Most telephone consultations for new problems lead to a face-to-face meeting rather than a diagnosis, making them shorter than equivalent face-to-face consultations. Interaction in telephone consultations is continuous and orderly, but in face-to-face consultations there are periods of silence that facilitate the introduction of additional topics, including social speech and rapport building. Doctors on the telephone are less likely to elicit additional concerns than in face-to-face consultations, and ask fewer questions when patients present self-diagnosed problems or describe problems with treatment. CONCLUSION: Doctors in general practice do not substantially change their communicative behaviour on the telephone. Telephone consultations are shorter and include less problem disclosure than face-to-face meetings, partly because they are typically mono-topical and partly because of intrinsic differences between the two channels. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Heather Hewitt; Joseph Gafaranga; Brian McKinstry |
Related Documents
:
|
20883355 - Quantitative assessment of commercial filter 'aids' for red-green colour defectives. 20809485 - Accuracy and cut-off point selection in three-class classification problems using a gen... 20483815 - Pathgroups, a dynamic data structure for genome reconstruction problems. 22098325 - Narcissistic interpersonal problems in clinical practice. 21232485 - A century of community ecology: how much progress? 21846835 - The communication orientation model: explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, an... |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners Volume: 60 ISSN: 1478-5242 ISO Abbreviation: Br J Gen Pract Publication Date: 2010 May |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2010-04-28 Completed Date: 2010-12-20 Revised Date: 2011-07-28 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9005323 Medline TA: Br J Gen Pract Country: England |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: e201-12 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Centre for Population Health Sciences: General Practice Section, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, UK. Heather.Hewitt@ed.ac.uk |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Attitude of Health Personnel* Communication* General Practice / methods* Humans Medical History Taking / methods Patient Satisfaction* Physician-Patient Relations* Professional Practice Scotland Telephone* |
| Grant Support | |
ID/Acronym/Agency:
|
CZG/2/330//Chief Scientist Office |
| Comments/Corrections | |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Patients' and clinicians' experiences of consultations in primary care for sleep problems and insomn...
Next Document: Value for money and the Quality and Outcomes Framework in primary care in the UK NHS.