Cited by 79Electronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Computer templates in chronic disease management: ethnographic case study in general practice

Open access
Swinglehurst, Deborah, Greenhalgh, Trisha, Roberts, Celia·2012·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how electronic templates shape, enable and constrain consultations about chronic diseases. DESIGN: Ethnographic case study, combining field notes, video-recording, screen capture with a microanalysis of talk, body language and data entry-an approach called linguistic ethnography. SETTING: Two general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Ethnographic observation of administrative areas and 36 nurse-led consultations was done. Twenty-four consultations were directly observed and 12 consultations were video-recorded alongside computer screen capture. Consultations were transcribed using conversation analysis conventions, with notes on body language and the electronic record. The analysis involved repeated rounds of viewing video, annotating field notes, transcription and microanalysis to identify themes. The data was interpreted using discourse analysis, with attention to the sociotechnical theory. RESULTS: Consultations centred explicitly or implicitly on evidence-based protocols inscribed in templates. Templates did not simply identify tasks for completion, but contributed to defining what chronic diseases were, how care was being delivered and what it meant to be a patient or professional in this context. Patients' stories morphed into data bytes; the particular became generalised; the complex was made discrete, simple and manageable; and uncertainty became categorised and contained. Many consultations resembled bureaucratic encounters, primarily oriented to completing data fields. We identified a tension, sharpened by the template, between different framings of the patient-as 'individual' or as 'one of a population'. Some clinicians overcame this tension, responding creatively to prompts within a dialogue constructed around the patient's narrative. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their widespread implementation, little previous research has examined how templates are actually used in practice. Templates do not simply document the tasks of chronic disease management but profoundly change the nature of this work. Designed to assure standards of 'quality' care they contribute to bureaucratisation of care and may marginalise aspects of quality care which lie beyond their focus. Creative work is required to avoid privileging 'institution-centred' care over patient-centred care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001754

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]Singh D Ham C Improving care for people with long term conditions: A review of UK and international management frameworks. Birmingham: NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement; University of Birmingham, 2006
  2. [45]Sarangi S Slembrouck S The pragmatics of information exchange in bureaucratic discourse. In: Sarangi S Slembrouck S, eds. Language, bureaucracy & social control. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996: 17– 35
  3. [47]Wagner E Austin B Von Korff M Organising care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74: 511– 44 8941260
  4. [53]Goffman E Involvement. Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press, 1966: 33– 42
  5. [57]Blommaert J Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swinglehurst, D., Greenhalgh, T., & Roberts, C.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Swinglehurst, Deborah
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
e001754
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048341830
Cited by
79
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RDA/03/07/07, RDA/03/07/076, 10/1011/01)
  • Rural Development Administration
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
chronic disease management, nurse-led consultations, general practice, bureaucratic encounters, patient-centered care, clinical documentation, socio-technical systems theory, patient narratives, clinical decision support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review