The results can be given as a (provisional) diagnosis, followed by a treatment advise, further testing, or a referral. Some sort of ‘examination’ is often next, whether as a verbal questioning or a physical one, or a combination of these.
MY MEDICAL ENCOUNTERS COM PROFESSIONAL
After some preliminaries, the first item on the agenda will be the reason for the visit, expressed and explicated by the patient in first visits and sometimes by the professional on returns. The overall structure of medical consultationsĤMost medical consultations seem to be organized along the lines of a fairly stereotypical overall sequential structure, with many type- or case-dependent variations (cf. On occasion, more general categories of, for example, age and gender, or parent and child, may also come into play. Concepts of differential knowledge and knowledge rights play a role in the overall structure of the encounters as well as in the details of the actually realized formats. Physicians should have a stock of general medical knowledge of a ‘technical’ kind and the ability to apply this knowledge to the case at hand, while patients are supposed to have only a ‘lay’ version of medical knowledge, but quite an extensive and specific knowledge of their own life experiences.
In other words, physicians and patients assume that they have different ‘rights’ and ‘duties’ regarding specific types of knowledge.
MY MEDICAL ENCOUNTERS COM HOW TO
This is an examples of what Sacks (1972, 37-39) has called the category collection K, ‘a collection constructed by reference to special distributions of knowledge existing about how to deal with some trouble’, where ‘collection K is composed of two classes (professional, laymen)’. Predominant among the possibly relevant categories for the encounters to be discussed are the complementary ones of, on the one hand, physician, and, on the other, patient. Any next action can be related to the previous one, and produces a local context for the next.ģAs a background to their local decisions, participants rely in part on sets of notions which they presume to be shared among them regarding the various categories to which they belong and the various predicates associated with them. Each ‘production’ of talk-in-interaction is a collaborative one. In similar ways, interactants produce question-answer sequences, story-telling sequences, etc., of varying complexities. As one, speaker, for instance, initiates a greeting, other participants in the event are expected to greet in return, so that they produce a ‘greeting sequence’ together. The tasks tend to be asymmetrically distributed in terms of initiatives and responsibilities, while the objectives may be complementary, but at times divergent.ĢCA stresses that such formats have the character of sequential structures that evolve over time. These formats can be related to diverse tasks and objectives. Format preferences often become institutionalized, involving change over time and differences between various styles and cultures. Participants may differ in their format preferences and negotiate the organization of their encounter in more or less open ways. While being generic, they can and are continuously adapted to the local occasions of their use. 1Over the last 40 years or so, CA has discovered and formulated a range of more or less generic ‘formats’ which members of society have available to organize their interactions.
0 kommentar(er)
