Abstract / Summary
Modern clinical medicine depends on reducing complex human realities into forms that support knowledge, judgment, and action. Such reduction is indispensable to scientific medicine, but necessarily selective. A medical framing may therefore remain well warranted within medicine while becoming insufficient in relation to the reality of a particular patient. What happens clinically when the adequacy of such a framing itself becomes uncertain remains insufficiently understood. We conducted an abductive, theory-generating qualitative study of 44 patients who attended a supplementary Dialogue-Based Outpatient Clinic within a breast oncology service in Japan between 2021 and 2023, comprising 111 consultations. The clinic had no predefined clinical agenda, allowing patients to raise concerns that mattered to them. Through iterative comparison within and across cases, we examined how patients' concerns were understood and responded to clinically. Across cases, a recurrent clinical process became apparent when patient reality called the adequacy of existing medical framing into question. Exploration of patients' concerns could expose a consequential mismatch between their reality and the framing through which medicine understands and represents clinical reality. Such mismatches prompted inquiry into medical framing to identify what required reopening. Reopening occurred when the identified framing, previously treated as provisionally settled, became reconsiderable in relation to the patient's reality. Reconsideration involved examining what had been reopened and exploring clinical responses through dialogue between clinician and patient, followed by a clinical response and provisional closure. We describe this recurrent process as Clinical Epistemic Reopening (CER). CER identifies a clinical process through which the framing produced by medicine's necessary selectivity in making complex reality clinically knowable and actionable can itself become reconsiderable when patient reality reveals its limits. CER can thereby reverse the usual direction of clinical scrutiny: aspects of medicine that ordinarily function as means of understanding and acting upon the patient can themselves become objects of clinical inquiry. CER thus allows medicine to remain open to patient reality beyond the limits of its existing framings.