Objective: To analyse in detail therapists' and patients' communication practices during physiotherapy goal-setting in stroke rehabilitation settings. To deduce explanations for observed practices. To contribute to understanding of the communication challenges entailed in goal-setting.
Design: A conversation analytic study of video-recorded treatment sessions.
Setting: Physiotherapy ‘gyms’ in four UK hospitals.
Subjects: The 74 recorded sessions involved 21 patients (52-86 years, 11 female) and 10 senior physiotherapists. Patients' disabilities varied; none were severely aphasic. Nine of the therapists were female, post qualification experience ranged from 3 to 23 years.
Findings: Eight goal-setting episodes were identified. In all but one, therapists supplied the target problems or abilities for which goals were subsequently set. The case in which the patient was asked to propose problems prior to goal-setting is examined in detail. Various interactional difficulties and delays arose both in eliciting the patient's views and incorporating them into agreed goals. Strategies by which the therapist dealt with difficulties included repeated and constraining questions, negotiation, and amending proposed goals.
Conclusions: Findings of this small, detailed study might help explain previous observations of infrequent goal-setting and failure to maximize patients' involvement therein. Goal-setting, particularly where patients' views are elicited and incorporated, involves skill and effort, and is influenced by powerful social constraints. Developing detailed knowledge of both practices and constraints may contribute to improving professional practice, guidance and education. The paper demonstrates the utility of detailed analysis of rehabilitation communication using conversation analytic methods.
2 Lawler J, Dowswell G, Hearn J, Forster A, Young, J. Recovering from stroke: a qualitative investigation of the role of goal-setting in late stroke recovery. J Adv Nurs1999; 30: 401-409.
4 Moffett JK. The physiotherapist as ‘enabler’Phys Ther Rev2000; 5: 75-77.
5.
5 Wade DT. Goal planning in stroke rehabilitation: evidence, Top Stroke Rehabil1999; 6: 37-42.
6.
6 Partridge C. Evaluation of physiotherapy for people with stroke: report of a workshop on appropriate outcomes of physiotherapy for people with stroke. London: King's Fund Centre, 1994.
7.
7 Playford D, Dawson L, Limbert V, Smith M, Ward CD, Wells R. Goal-setting in rehabilitation: report of a workshop to explore professionals' perceptions of goal-setting. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 491-496.
8.
8 Turner-Stokes L. British Society For Rehabilitation Medicine Standards for Specialist Inpatient and Community Rehabilitation Services. Clin Rehabil2002; 16(suppl 1): 39-46 (Appendix 1).
9.
9 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Core standards. London: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, 2000.
10.
10 American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to physical therapist practice. Phys Ther2001; 81(suppl 1): 46-47.
11.
11 Association of Chartered Physiotherapists Interested in Neurology. Standards of physiotherapy practice in neurology. London: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, 1995.
12.
12 Talvitie U. Guidance strategies and motor modelling in physiotherapy. Physiother Theory Pract1996; 12: 49-60.
13.
13 Payton O, Nelson C. A preliminary study of patients' perceptions of certain aspects of their physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract1996; 12: 27-38.
15 Jordan B, Henderson A. Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. J Learning Sci1995; 4: 39-103.
16.
16 Peräkylä, A. Reliability and validity in research based on tapes and transcripts. In: Silverman D ed. Qualitative research: theory, methods and practice. London: Sage, 1997: 201-219.
17.
17 ten Have P. Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage, 1999.
18.
18 Heath C. The analysis of activities in face to face interaction using video. In Silverman D ed. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. London: Sage, 1997: 183-200.
19.
19 Heritage J. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In: Silverman D ed. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. London: Sage, 1997: 161-182.
20.
20 Heritage J. Garfinkel and ethno methodology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
21.
21 McCabe R, Heath C, Burns T, Priebe S. Engagement of patients with psychosis in the consultation: conversation analytic study. BMJ2002; 325: 1148-1151.
22.
22 Heath C. The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation. In: Drew P, Heritage J eds. Talk at work interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 235-267.
23.
23 Heritage J, Maynard D eds. Practising medicine: structure and process in primary care consultations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).
24.
24 Sluijs E, van der Zee J, Kok G. Differences between physical therapists in attention paid to patient education. Physiother Theory Pract1993; 9: 103-117.
25.
25 Jones A, Cupit R, Choy V, Jones D. Student-patient communication during physiotherapy treatment. Aust J Physiother1998; 44: 181-186.
26.
26 Dockrell S. An investigation of the use of verbal and non-verbal communication skills by final year physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy1988; 74: 52-55.
27.
27 Thornquist E. Profession and life: separate worlds. Soc Sci Med1994; 39: 701-713.
28.
28 Talvitie U, Reunanen M. Interaction between physiotherapists and patients in stroke treatment. Physiotherapy2002; 88: 77-88.
29.
29 Heritage J. Ethno methodology. In: Giddens A, Turner J eds. Social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987: 224-272.
30.
30 Heritage J. Interactional accountability: a conversation analytic perspective. In: Conein B, de Fornel M, Quere L eds. Les formes de la conversation, Volume 1. Paris: CNET, 1990: 23-49.
31.
31 Clayman SE, Gill VT. Conversation analysis. In: Hardy M, Bryman A eds. Handbook of data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 2004.
32.
32 Heath C. Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
33.
33 Drew P, Heritage J. Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In: Drew P, Heritage J eds. Talk at work interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 30-31.
34.
34 Drew P. Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In: Markova I, Foppa K eds. Asymmetries in dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991: 29-48.
35.
35 Maynard DW. Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. Am J Sociol1991; 97: 448-495.
36.
36 ten Have P. Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the “asymmetry” of doctor-patient interaction. In: Boden D, Zimmerman DH eds. Talk and social structure. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991: 138-163.
37.
37 Sharrock W. Portraying the professional relationship. In: Anderson DC ed. Health education in practice. London: Croom Helm, 1979: 125-146.
38.
38 Pilnick A. ‘Why didn't you say just that?’ Dealing with issues of asymmetry, knowledge and competence in the pharmacist/client encounter. Sociol Health Illness1998; 20: 29-51.
39.
39 Parry RH. The interactional management of patients' physical incompetence: a conversation analytic study of physiotherapy interactions. Social Health Illness, in press.
40.
40 Lindsay J, Wilkinson R. Repair sequences in aphasic talk: a comparison of aphasic-speech and language therapist and aphasic-spouse conversations. Aphasiology1999; 13: 305-325.
41.
41 Weeks P. A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: an analysis of correction talk. Res Lang Soc Interaction1996; 29: 247-290.
42.
42 Payton O, Nelson C, Hobbs M. Physical therapy patients' perceptions of their relationships with health care professionals. Physiother Theory Pract1998; 14: 211-221.
