Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools.

In this paper, we draw on the analytic perspectives of ethnomethodology to explore doctor-patient encounters in an experimental trial of a complex intervention: an efficacy randomised controlled trial (RCT) of decision-support tools in the UK. We show how the experimental context in which these encounters take place pervades the interactions within them. We argue that two interactional orders were at work in the encounters that we observed: (i) the ceremonial order of the consultation and (ii) the assemblage of the decision-support tool trial. We demonstrate how doctors in the trial oscillate between positions as authoritative clinician and neutralistic decision-support tool-implementer, and patients move between positions as passive recipients of clinical knowledge and as active subjects required to render their experience as calculable in terms of the demands of the decision-support tools and the broader trial they are embedded in. We demonstrate how the RCT coordinates the world of the clinical environment and the world of experimental evidence.

[1]  C. Heath,et al.  Sharing the Tools of the Trade , 2000 .

[2]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[3]  P. Bower,et al.  Domains of consultation research in primary care. , 2001, Patient education and counseling.

[4]  H. Garfinkel.  Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[5]  J. Hindmarsh,et al.  The Tacit Order of Teamwork: Collaboration and Embodied Conduct in Anesthesia , 2002 .

[6]  J. Marley,et al.  The willingness of women to participate in a long-term trial of hormone replacement therapy: A qualitative study using focus groups , 2002 .

[7]  E. Mishler,et al.  Discourse Of Medicine Dialectics Of Medical Interviews , 2017 .

[8]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Quality improvement report , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Angela Robinson,et al.  Development and description of a decision analysis based decision support tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

[10]  K. Mohanna,et al.  Withholding consent to participate in clinical trials: decisions of pregnant women , 1999, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  T. Peters,et al.  Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study , 2002 .

[12]  A. Mol.  The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .

[13]  Michael King.  Communication and medical practice: D. Silverman: Sage, London (1987). pp. viii + 279. £10.95 paperback; £25.00 hardback. , 1989 .

[14]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.

[15]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences , 2001 .

[16]  D. Lupton,et al.  Medicine as Culture: Illness, Disease and the Body , 2012 .

[17]  Tiago Moreira,et al.  Coordination and Embodiment in the Operating Room , 2004 .

[18]  D Armstrong,et al.  Space and time in British general practice. , 1985, Social science & medicine.

[19]  B. Tilley,et al.  Recruiting older African American men to a cancer screening trial (the AAMEN Project). , 2003, The Gerontologist.

[20]  P. Sandercock,et al.  Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  R M Kaplan,et al.  Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[22]  C. Heath,et al.  Body movement and speech in medical interaction: Postscript: the use of medical records and computers during the consultation , 1986 .