The patient and the computer in the primary care consultation.
OBJECTIVE
Studies of the doctor-patient relationship have focused on the elaboration of power and/or authority using a range of techniques to study the encounter between doctor and patient. The widespread adoption of computers by doctors brings a third party into the consultation. While there has been some research into the way doctors view and manage this new relationship, the behavior of patients in response to the computer is rarely studied. In this paper, the authors use Goffman's dramaturgy to explore patients' approaches to the doctor's computer in the consultation, and its influence on the patient-doctor relationship.


METHODS
Observational study of Australian general practice. 141 consultations from 20 general practitioners were videotaped and analyzed using a hermeneutic framework.


RESULTS
Patients negotiated the relationship between themselves, the doctor, and the computer demonstrating two themes: dyadic (dealing primarily with the doctor) or triadic (dealing with both computer and doctor). Patients used three signaling behaviors in relation to the computer on the doctor's desk (screen watching, screen ignoring, and screen excluding) to influence the behavior of the doctor. Patients were able to draw the doctor to the computer, and used the computer to challenge doctor's statements.


CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that in consultations where doctors use computers, the computer can legitimately be regarded as part of a triadic relationship. Routine use of computers in the consultation changes the doctor-patient relationship, and is altering the distribution of power and authority between doctor and patient.
Melbourne East General Practice Network, Melbourne, Australia. drchrispearce@mac.com
Christopher
C
Pearce
Michael
M
Arnold
Christine
C
Phillips
Stephen
S
Trumble
Kathryn
K
Dwan
D000555:Ambulatory Care Information Systems; D001288:Attention; D001292:Attitude to Computers; D001315:Australia; D003201:Computers; D005260:Female; D058006:General Practice; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D019370:Observation; D009819:Office Visits; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011209:Power, Psychological
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Aug;77(8):534-8
18036885
Inform Prim Care. 2006;14(4):221-6
17504573
Qual Health Res. 2006 Feb;16(2):238-48
16394212
Fam Med. 2005 Apr;37(4):276-81
15812698
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1969 May;17(82):269-76
5770926
J Fam Pract. 1991 Feb;32(2):135-6
1990040
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Mar;24(3):341-8
19130148
Fam Pract. 2000 Oct;17(5):422-7
11021903
J Med Syst. 2003 Feb;27(1):67-84
12617199
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(5):651-61
10452420
JAMA. 1992 Apr 22-29;267(16):2221-6
1556799
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Jul-Aug;12(4):474-80
15802484
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 1;21(5):932-6
12610196
BMJ. 1991 Nov 30;303(6814):1385-7
1760608
Fam Pract. 1996 Dec;13(6):536-43
9023531
Scand J Prim Health Care. 1991 Jun;9(2):71-7
1891661
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;155:196-202
20543329
Inform Prim Care. 2008;16(2):111-7
18713527
Sociometry. 1965 Sep;28:289-304
14341239
BMJ. 2002 Jun 29;324(7353):1567-9
12089097
J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Aug;15(4):641-9
19522722
AMA Arch Intern Med. 1956 May;97(5):585-92
13312700
Health Care Anal. 2001;9(4):449-62
11874258
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Dec;77(12):848-54
18657471
Aust Fam Physician. 2006 Jun;35(6):439-42
16751862
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Aug;20(8):677-82
16050873
Inform Prim Care. 2004;12(2):75-83
15319059
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989 Sep;39(326):383-6
2558190