Communication regarding adverse neonatal birth events: Experiences of parents and clinicians

2021 ◽  
pp. 251604352110177
Author(s):  
Davia Liba Loren ◽  
Anne Drapkin Lyerly ◽  
Lauren Lipira ◽  
Madelene Ottosen ◽  
Emily Namey ◽  
...  

Objectives Communicating with parents about adverse birth outcomes is challenging. We sought to describe attitudes and experiences of parents and providers regarding communication about adverse newborn birth events. Methods From 2011–2012, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with parents who believed they had experienced an adverse birth-related neonatal outcome and focus groups with healthcare providers who have communicated with parents about adverse newborn birth events from three geographically diverse US academic medical centers. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results Parents and providers described unique communication challenges around adverse neonatal outcomes in six categories: 1) High expectations for a positive delivery experience and the view that birth is a life event, not a medical encounter; 2) Powerful emotions associated with birth, amplified when an adverse event occurs; 3) Rapid changes when expectations for a normal birth take a sudden negative turn; 4) Family involvement adding complexity to communication; 5) Multiple patients and providers complicating communication dynamics with inter-professional teams seeking to coordinate information and care; and, 6) Concerns about litigation surrounding the birth experience. Strategies to educate parents and enhance communication were identified by both parents and providers. Conclusion Both parents and providers experience – and may suffer as a result of – communication challenges following adverse birth events affecting the newborn. Training and resources for this care environment are needed to meet parental, extended family, and provider expectations for communication when these events occur.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s114-s115
Author(s):  
Alexandra Johnson ◽  
Bobby Warren ◽  
Deverick John Anderson ◽  
Melissa Johnson ◽  
Isabella Gamez ◽  
...  

Background: Stethoscopes are a known vector for microbial transmission; however, common strategies used to clean stethoscopes pose certain barriers that prevent routine cleaning after every use. We aimed to determine whether using readily available alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) would effectively reduce bacterial bioburden on stethoscopes in a real-world setting. Methods: We performed a randomized study on inpatient wards of an academic medical center to assess the impact of using ABHR (AlcareExtra; ethyl alcohol, 80%) on the bacterial bioburden of stethoscopes. Stethoscopes were obtained from healthcare providers after routine use during an inpatient examination and were randomized to control (no intervention) or ABHR disinfection (2 pumps applied to tubing and bell or diaphragm by study personnel, then allowed to dry). Cultures of the tubing and bell or diaphragm were obtained with premoistened cellulose sponges. Sponges were combined with 1% Tween20-PBS and mixed in the Seward Stomacher. The homogenate was centrifuged and all but ~5 mL of the supernatant was discarded. Samples were plated on sheep’s blood agar and selective media for clinically important pathogens (CIPs) including S. aureus, Enterococcus spp, and gram-negative bacteria (GNB). CFU count was determined by counting the number of colonies on each plate and using dilution calculations to calculate the CFU of the original ~5 mL homogenate. Results: In total, 80 stethoscopes (40 disinfection, 40 control) were sampled from 46 physicians (MDs) and MD students (57.5%), 13 advanced practice providers (16.3%), and 21 nurses (RNs) and RN students (26.3%). The median CFU count was ~30-fold lower in the disinfection arm compared to control (106 [IQR, 50–381] vs 3,320 [986–4,834]; P < .0001). The effect was consistent across provider type, frequency of recent usual stethoscope cleaning, age, and status of pet ownership (Fig. 1). Overall, 26 of 80 (33%) of stethoscopes harbored CIP. The presence of CIP was lower but not significantly different for stethoscopes that underwent disinfection versus controls: S. aureus (25% vs 32.5%), Enterococcus (2.5% vs 10%), and GNB (2.5% vs 5%). Conclusions: Stethoscopes may serve as vectors for clean hands to become recontaminated immediately prior to performing patient care activities. Using ABHR to clean stethoscopes after every use is a practical and effective strategy to reduce overall bacterial contamination that can be easily incorporated into clinical workflow. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of ABHR at removing CIP from stethoscopes as stethoscopes in both arms were frequently contaminated with CIP. Prior cleaning of stethoscopes on the study day did not seem to impact contamination rates, suggesting the impact of alcohol foam disinfection is short-lived and may need to be repeated frequently (ie, after each use).Funding: NoneDisclosures: NoneDisclosures: NoneFunding: None


2021 ◽  
pp. 124-126
Author(s):  
Aloisio Antonio Gomes de Matos ◽  
Séphora Natércia Albuquerque Oliveira ◽  
Modesto Leite Rolim Neto

Background: The FDA has been requiring that information about using remdesivir to treat COVID-19 be made available to healthcare providers and patients, including dosing instructions, potential side effects, and drug interactions. It is important to observe the initial indicators of anxiety, fear, and euphoria for families during emergencies, including information on the possible side effects. This situational context is very important in all the world, because it opens doors for providing the use of updated information about treatment follow-up and for offering improved mental health services. Method: The studies were identified in well-known international journals found in two electronic databases: Scopus and Embase. The data were cross-checked with information from the main international newspapers. Results: The high expectations supported by an immediate discourse culminate in frustration and displeasure, while more consistent empirical results are not generated. These two are predictors of psychic suffering, especially due to the scarcity of information and uncertainties. In parallel, recent studies indicate that spreading information without scientific basis intensifies damage to the routine and health of people, which are already impacted by the pandemic situation. This misrepresented spread may be a factor for unleashing fear and, as a consequence, social despair. Conclusions: Based on the impulsive scenarios stimulated in the context of hydroxychloroquine and on the high spread of fake or distorted news, the psychiatric impacts of COVID-19 pandemic associated with the use of remdesivir may be worsened and reflected directly on the population’s self-esteem.


2016 ◽  
pp. 1465-1497
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Rosiek-Kryszewska ◽  
Łukasz Leksowski ◽  
Anna Rosiek ◽  
Krzysztof Leksowski ◽  
Aleksander Goch

Patient-clinician communication presents the views of several national authorities on the principles and expectations of shared decision-making between patients and their healthcare providers, including doctors, and nurses and oncology nurses. In this chapter authors focus on the communication challenges facing doctors who trained in medical environment in Poland, in order to prepare communications training designed specifically for doctors and to illustrate how a close analysis of professional discourse can be transferred to work environments beyond the medical world. Authors draw attention to clinical roles performed by medical staff practicing locally and trained doctors.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1191-1197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shea A. Liput ◽  
Sandra L. Kane-Gill ◽  
Amy L. Seybert ◽  
Pamela L. Smithburger

Author(s):  
Andy S.L. Tan ◽  
Thomas H. Gallagher

Few communication challenges are as difficult for healthcare providers as talking with patients about adverse events, especially when the adverse event was due to a medical error. Ethicists and professional organizations have long endorsed open communication with patients about adverse events and errors in their care. Over the past decade, however, there has been a substantial increase in attention being paid to transparent communication with patients. Many countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada have undertaken major disclosure initiatives. The Joint Commission, the body responsible for the accreditation of most US healthcare facilities, requires that patients be informed of all outcomes in their care, including ‘unanticipated outcomes’. In this chapter, we will explore the special aspects of disclosure in the oncology context, among many other important aspects. The chapter concludes by considering a disclosure case study, and discussing next steps for disclosure in oncology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1036-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankur Segon ◽  
Yogita Segon ◽  
Vivek Kumar ◽  
Hirotaka Kato

Patient’s perception of their inpatient experience is measured by the Center for Medical Services’ (CMS) administered Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (HCAHPS) survey. There is scant existing literature on physicians’ perceptions toward the HCAHPS scoring system. Understanding hospitalist knowledge and attitude toward the HCAHPS survey can help guide efforts to impact HCAHPS survey scores by improving the patient’s perception of their hospital experience. The goal of this study is to explore hospitalists’ knowledge and perspective of the physician communication domain of the HCAHPS survey at an academic medical center. Seven hospitalists at an academic medical center were interviewed for this report using a semistructured interview. Thematic analysis approach was used to analyze data. Open, line-by-line coding was performed on all 7 transcripts. Categories were derived in an inductive fashion. Categories were refined using the techniques of constant comparison and axial coding. We generated themes reflecting hospitalists’ knowledge of the HCAHPS scoring system, their perception of the HCAHPS scoring system and the impact of the HCAHPS scoring system on their practice. While hospitalists acknowledged physician–patient communication is a challenging area to study, they are unlikely to embrace the feedback provided by HCAHPS surveys. There is a need to deploy tactics that provide timely and actionable feedback to providers on their bedside communication skills.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas R. Oyler, PharmD ◽  
Kristy S. Deep, MD ◽  
Phillip K. Chang, MD

Objective: To examine attitudes, beliefs, and influencing factors of inpatient healthcare providers regarding prescription of opioid analgesics.Design: Electronic cross-sectional survey.Setting: Academic medical center.Participants: Physicians, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists from a single academic medical center in the southeast United States.Main Outcome Measures: Respondents completed survey items addressing: (1) their practice demographics, (2) their opinions regarding overall use, safety, and efficacy of opioids compared to other analgesics, (3) specific clinical scenarios, (4) main pressures to prescribe opioids, and (5) confidence/comfort prescribing opioids or nonopioids in select situations.Results: The majority of the sample (n = 363) were physicians (60.4 percent), with 69.4 percent of physicians being attendings. Most respondents believed that opioids were overused at our institution (61.7 percent); nearly half thought opioids had similar efficacy to other analgesics (44.1 percent), and almost all believed opioids were more dangerous than other analgesics (88.1 percent). Many respondents indicated that they would modify a chronic regimen for a high-risk patient, and use of nonopioids in specific scenarios was high. However, this use was often in combination with opioids. Respondents identified patients (64 percent) and staff (43.1 percent) as the most significant sources of pressure to prescribe opioids during an admission; the most common sources of pressure to prescribe opioidson discharge were to facilitate discharge (44.8 percent) and to reduce follow-up requests, calls, or visits (36.3 percent). Resident physicians appear to experience more pressure to prescribe opioids than other providers. Managing pain in patients with substance use disorders and effectively using nonopioid analgesics were the most common educational needs identified by respondents.Conclusion: Most individuals believe opioid analgesics are overused in our specific setting, commonly to satisfy patient requests. In general, providers feel uncomfortable prescribing nonopioid analgesics to patients.


2021 ◽  
pp. 201010582110686
Author(s):  
Teck W. William Go ◽  
Hoi T. Mok ◽  
Sanchalika Acharyya ◽  
Darlin C. Suelo ◽  
Eu C. Ho

Communication difficulties can, and often do, create barriers between patients and healthcare workers (HCWs). We examined the perceptual differences between patients and caregivers; and HCWs with regards to their perceived communication vulnerabilities and identified communication needs in a tertiary hospital. A survey was conducted in selected outpatient settings among patients, their caregivers and HCWs, in a cross-sectional study. Respondents rated the reasons and frequency of encountering the communication difficulties during a hospital visit. Fifty-four percent of patients and caregivers cited poor hearing in the presence of noise, while HCWs cited patient’s poor vision (87%) as their primary communication barrier that requires improvement. Majority of HCWs (90%) had encountered patients who presented multiple communication barriers a quarter of the time. A third of HCWs felt that such encounters were especially challenging during communication, with very limited strategies available to deal with such communication vulnerable individuals. Patients, caregivers and HCWs universally experience communication challenges, even if their perceived barriers to communication happen to differ. Such perceptual difference between patients and HCWs may lead to inconsistent use of communication strategies by HCWs, potentially compromising patient’s healthcare needs. Nonetheless, the onus is on healthcare providers to bridge this communication gap to improve patient care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document