Communication barriers to optimal access to emergency rooms according to deaf and hard-of-hearing patients and health care workers: A mixed-methods study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1111/acem.15037
Carolina Tannenbaum-Baruchi, Paula Feder-Bubis, Limor Aharonson-Daniel
{"title":"Communication barriers to optimal access to emergency rooms according to deaf and hard-of-hearing patients and health care workers: A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Carolina Tannenbaum-Baruchi, Paula Feder-Bubis, Limor Aharonson-Daniel","doi":"10.1111/acem.15037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to identify communication barriers between health care workers (HCWs) and deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients. Both perspectives are offered to provide a comprehensive understanding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two consecutive studies were conducted from 2018 to 2021. Study 1 comprised mixed methods, employing a cross-sectional survey (n = 288) and in-depth interviews (n = 9) with DHH participants, utilizing accessible tools including sign language. Study 2 involved a cross-sectional survey of health care emergency workers without hearing loss (N = 391).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The perceived self-efficacy of DHH patients, and not their hearing loss, was linked with their ability to communicate independently with HCWs. No significant differences in successful communication with these providers were found vis-à-vis mode of communication utilized (sign language, writing, interpreter, etc.). In the qualitative findings, DHH patients noted two urgent care barriers: HCWs' communication unfamiliarity and patients' communication accessibility issues. Quantitative findings indicated a main barrier: difficulties in communicating with HCWs in general (57%) and specifically in the emergency room (ER; 65%). Only 28.8% reported being able to independently communicate with ER staff. Health care providers were not familiar with effective communication strategies when treating these patients. Respondents indicating that communication was not a barrier to care were mainly administrative staff (54.55%), compared to nurses (32.74%) and physicians (22.58%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Communication solutions are needed to improve access to health services, especially in emergencies. Providing medical staff training on effective communication strategies with these patients could simplify interactions and reduce the reliance on hearing family members, potentially improving medical care. Implementing a communication policy for frontline staff, along with the use of visual aids, is crucial. Health care professionals may not realize that small changes can greatly improve communication with DHH patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify communication barriers between health care workers (HCWs) and deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients. Both perspectives are offered to provide a comprehensive understanding.

Methods: Two consecutive studies were conducted from 2018 to 2021. Study 1 comprised mixed methods, employing a cross-sectional survey (n = 288) and in-depth interviews (n = 9) with DHH participants, utilizing accessible tools including sign language. Study 2 involved a cross-sectional survey of health care emergency workers without hearing loss (N = 391).

Results: The perceived self-efficacy of DHH patients, and not their hearing loss, was linked with their ability to communicate independently with HCWs. No significant differences in successful communication with these providers were found vis-à-vis mode of communication utilized (sign language, writing, interpreter, etc.). In the qualitative findings, DHH patients noted two urgent care barriers: HCWs' communication unfamiliarity and patients' communication accessibility issues. Quantitative findings indicated a main barrier: difficulties in communicating with HCWs in general (57%) and specifically in the emergency room (ER; 65%). Only 28.8% reported being able to independently communicate with ER staff. Health care providers were not familiar with effective communication strategies when treating these patients. Respondents indicating that communication was not a barrier to care were mainly administrative staff (54.55%), compared to nurses (32.74%) and physicians (22.58%).

Conclusions: Communication solutions are needed to improve access to health services, especially in emergencies. Providing medical staff training on effective communication strategies with these patients could simplify interactions and reduce the reliance on hearing family members, potentially improving medical care. Implementing a communication policy for frontline staff, along with the use of visual aids, is crucial. Health care professionals may not realize that small changes can greatly improve communication with DHH patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
聋人和听力障碍患者及医护人员在使用急诊室时遇到的沟通障碍:混合方法研究。
背景:本研究旨在确定医护人员(HCWs)与失聪和重听(DHH)患者之间的沟通障碍。提供了两种视角,以提供全面的理解:从 2018 年到 2021 年连续进行了两项研究。研究 1 包括混合方法,采用横断面调查(n = 288)和深度访谈(n = 9),利用包括手语在内的无障碍工具对 DHH 参与者进行访谈。研究 2 对没有听力损失的医疗急救人员进行了横断面调查(样本数=391):结果:听力障碍患者的自我效能感(而非听力损失)与他们独立与医护人员沟通的能力有关。在与这些医疗服务提供者成功沟通的过程中,没有发现使用的沟通模式(手语、书写、翻译等)有明显差异。在定性研究结果中,DHH 患者指出了两个紧急护理障碍:医护人员不熟悉沟通方式,以及患者的沟通障碍。定量研究结果表明了一个主要障碍:在一般情况下(57%),特别是在急诊室(ER;65%),与医护人员沟通有困难。只有 28.8% 的人表示能够独立与急诊室工作人员沟通。医护人员在治疗这些患者时不熟悉有效的沟通策略。表示沟通不是医疗障碍的受访者主要是行政人员(54.55%),相比之下,护士(32.74%)和医生(22.58%)的比例较低:要改善医疗服务的可及性,尤其是在紧急情况下,就需要解决沟通问题。为医务人员提供与这些患者有效沟通策略的培训可简化互动,减少对听力受损家庭成员的依赖,从而改善医疗服务。对一线员工实施沟通政策并使用视觉辅助工具至关重要。医护人员可能没有意识到,小小的改变就能大大改善与 DHH 患者的沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Can first impressions predict patient outcomes? Epidemiology of sepsis presentations and management among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023. Ruling out pulmonary embolism safely: Standardized reporting of the failure rate. Opening invisible wounds. Failure rate of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for adults 35 years or younger: Findings from the RIETE Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1