Attending to audience: comparing optometry student talk with and about patients

• Published in: Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice 2009-12, Vol.14 (5), p.777-789
• Main Authors: Hildebrand, Jenna M., Spafford, Marlee M., Schryer, Catherine F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Allied Health Occupations Education; Canada; Classroom Communication; Clinical Diagnosis; Clinical Teaching (Health Professions); College Students; Communication; Education; Education, Professional - methods; Educational Strategies; Eye examinations; Female; Foreign Countries; Goffman, Erving (1922-1982); Humans; Interpersonal Communication; Male; Medical Education; Medical Evaluation; Ontario; Optometry; Optometry - education; Patient-Centered Care - methods; Patients; Practicums; Professional-Patient Relations; Students, Health Occupations - psychology; Teaching; Vision Tests
• ISSN: 1382-4996; 1573-1677
• DOI: 10.1007/s10459-009-9161-7

We explored mediating concepts that affect clinical novices shifting between their talk with patients in eye examinations and their talk about patients in case presentations (nCPs). In a Canadian optometry teaching clinic, patient ‘chief concern or request’, ‘illness experience’, and ‘management’ utterances were observed in ten eye examinations and nCPs. Twenty-three participants (8 students, 5 instructors, and 10 patients) were observed; 22 were subsequently interviewed. Of 10 nCPs, the ‘chief concern or request’ was absent in four, the ‘illness experience’ was incomplete or absent in 9 and 5 of 19 (35.7%) ‘management’ topics were not discussed with patients. During eye exams, 17 of 31 (54.8%) ‘management’ discussions with patients were not discussed with instructors during nCPs. Instructional ‘scaffolding’ (Bruner and Sherwood in Play: its role in development and evolution, p. 280, 1976 ) appeared limited regarding talk with and about patients. The limited and recontextualized reporting of patient concerns and experiences in nCPs represented lost opportunities to provide and learn patient-centered care. While Goffman’s (The presentation of the self in everyday life, p. 114, 1969 ) ‘front stage’ performances and Mishler’s (The discourse of medicine: dialectics of medical interviews, p. 14, 1984 ) healthcare ‘voices’ suggest separate worlds of talk before patients and instructors, we found these worlds were not wholly separate for neophyte speakers. Mediating concepts that influence clinical novices shifting their performances before their audiences, included: (1) pedagogical inconsistencies, (2) incompatible values associated with talk, (3) discordance between patient care and student education, (4) time limitations for teaching, and (5) insufficient instructional ‘scaffolding’ about talk.