Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/35240

Title: Effective triaging in general practice receptions: a conversation analytic study
Authors: Sikveland, Rein O.
Stokoe, Elizabeth
Demjen, Z.
Issue Date: 2019
Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
Citation: SIKVELAND, R.O., STOKOE, E. and DEMJEM, Z., 2019. Effective triaging in general practice receptions: a conversation analytic study. IN: Applying linguistics in illness and healthcare contexts, In Press.
Abstract: When patients call to make appointments at the doctors, the relative urgency of their healthcare needs is something that ‘triaging’ systems are designed to establish. This chapter investigates how receptionist-led triage unfolds in patients’ calls to general practice surgeries. We collected 2780 audio-recorded telephone calls from three UK surgeries, transcribed them and used conversation analysis to study the real-time interaction between receptionists and patients. We focused on receptionists’ initial responses to patients’ requests to make a doctor’s appointment, and how receptionists established whether patients’ medical needs require (i) a same-day appointment with a doctor, (ii) a call-back from a doctor or nurse, or (iii), if not urgent, an appointment on a future date. We show how variation in the way receptionists initiated the triaging, i.e., how they sought to establish whether or not the request was urgent enough for a same-day appointment, was consequential for the smooth progress of the interaction. First, when receptionists initiated triaging with a polar interrogative asking patients to (dis)confirm their problem as ‘routine’ (‘is it just a routine appointment?’), or when contrasting ‘routine’ and ‘urgent’ (‘is it urgent or routine?’), patients were reluctant to confirm either way. Second, triaging progressed more smoothly when receptionists asked questions that solicited accounts. Interrogatives that were effective in soliciting an account from the patient included both polar interrogatives (‘is it something (urgent) for today?’), and wh- interrogatives (‘may I ask what the problem is?’), but the latter was more problematic for patients who wish to withhold their reason for seeing the doctor. Third, when patients, in their initial inquiries, did not describe their problem as urgent, they readily accepted a future appointment – suggesting that receptionists need not ask about urgency at all, in the first instance. Our findings have implications for GP receptionist training and wider practice policies.
Description: This paper is in closed access until 18 months after publication.
Version: Accepted for publication
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/35240
Publisher Link: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/
Appears in Collections:Closed Access (Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Sikveland Stokoe - Negotiation Urgency - final.pdfAccepted version256.81 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

 

SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.