Difference between revisions of "Pomerantz1987a"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Anita Pomerantz; Barbara P. Mastriano; Murray M. Halfond |Title=Students clinicians' difficulties while conducting the summary diagnosti...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Text | |Journal=Text | ||
|Volume=7 | |Volume=7 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=1 |
| − | | | + | |Pages=19–36 |
| + | |URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.1.1987.7.issue-1/text.1.1987.7.1.19/text.1.1987.7.1.19.xml | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1515/text.1.1987.7.1.19 | ||
| + | |Abstract=At the beginning of their clinical experience, student clinicians may be somewhat incompetent and lack expertise. Over the course of their training, they are expected to become more knowledgeable and competent as clinicians. Clinical training programs aim at facilitating these changes as efficiently as possible. The summary interview is a particularly difficult phase of the diagnostic process in that clinicians must present the findings in a way that is congruent with the client's/family's level of understanding and acceptance. The difficulty in doing this is magnified for student clinicians who often do not feel entirely authentic as experts, and yet are called upon to perform as such. Some of the practices that student clinicians use in conducting the summary interview seem to interfere with first-rate service delivery. This paper identifies two sets of practices and related attitudes that interfere, as judged by the research team. They are: 1. an over-concern with mitigating the bad news while delivering it, and 2. over-reliance on fest results. The researchers used a conversation analytic approach to analyze the student clinicians' language practices. The stages of the study were: (1) analyzing videotapes of the interviews to observe the client's/family's apparent concerns, (2) identifying occasions in which the Student clinician was not responsive to these concerns, (3) describing the Student clinician's behaviors and proposing factors that may account for these behaviors, and (4) providing recommendations for facilitating successful outcomes. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:25, 21 October 2019
| Pomerantz1987a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Pomerantz1987a |
| Author(s) | Anita Pomerantz, Barbara P. Mastriano, Murray M. Halfond |
| Title | Students clinicians' difficulties while conducting the summary diagnostic interview |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Medical EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Medical Interview, Student Clinicians |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1987 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 19–36 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text.1.1987.7.1.19 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
At the beginning of their clinical experience, student clinicians may be somewhat incompetent and lack expertise. Over the course of their training, they are expected to become more knowledgeable and competent as clinicians. Clinical training programs aim at facilitating these changes as efficiently as possible. The summary interview is a particularly difficult phase of the diagnostic process in that clinicians must present the findings in a way that is congruent with the client's/family's level of understanding and acceptance. The difficulty in doing this is magnified for student clinicians who often do not feel entirely authentic as experts, and yet are called upon to perform as such. Some of the practices that student clinicians use in conducting the summary interview seem to interfere with first-rate service delivery. This paper identifies two sets of practices and related attitudes that interfere, as judged by the research team. They are: 1. an over-concern with mitigating the bad news while delivering it, and 2. over-reliance on fest results. The researchers used a conversation analytic approach to analyze the student clinicians' language practices. The stages of the study were: (1) analyzing videotapes of the interviews to observe the client's/family's apparent concerns, (2) identifying occasions in which the Student clinician was not responsive to these concerns, (3) describing the Student clinician's behaviors and proposing factors that may account for these behaviors, and (4) providing recommendations for facilitating successful outcomes.
Notes
