重症监护室中的沟通:意想不到的安慰剂效应?

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Experience Pub Date : 2024-08-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23743735241272148
Irene Riestra Guiance, Lindsey Wallace, Katalin Varga, Alexander Niven, Megan Hosey, Jillene Chitulangoma, Kemuel Philbrick, Ognjen Gajic, Madeline Weiman, Emily Schmitt, David Pasko, Lioudmila Karnatovskaia
{"title":"重症监护室中的沟通:意想不到的安慰剂效应?","authors":"Irene Riestra Guiance, Lindsey Wallace, Katalin Varga, Alexander Niven, Megan Hosey, Jillene Chitulangoma, Kemuel Philbrick, Ognjen Gajic, Madeline Weiman, Emily Schmitt, David Pasko, Lioudmila Karnatovskaia","doi":"10.1177/23743735241272148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To identify medical phrases utilized by the critical care team that may have an unintended impact on the critically ill patient, we administered an anonymous survey to multi-professional critical care team members. We elicited examples of imprecise language that may have a negative emotional impact on the critically ill. Of the 1600 providers surveyed, 265 offered 1379 examples (912 unique) which were clustered into 5 categories. Medical jargon (eg, \"riding the vent\") was most prevalent (n = 549). There were 217 negative suggestions (eg, \"you will feel a stick and a burn\"). Hyperboles (eg, \"black cloud\") were common (n = 198) while homonyms (ie \"he fibbed\") accounted for 150 examples. Phrases such as \"code brown in there\" were categorized as metonyms (n = 144). 121 metaphors/similes (eg, \"rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic\") were provided. Phrases that have the potential to negatively impact critically ill patient perceptions are commonplace in critical care practice. Whether these everyday communication habits lead to an unintended nocebo effect on mental health outcomes of the critically ill deserves further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":45073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Experience","volume":"11 ","pages":"23743735241272148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11311157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communication in the ICU: An Unintended Nocebo Effect?\",\"authors\":\"Irene Riestra Guiance, Lindsey Wallace, Katalin Varga, Alexander Niven, Megan Hosey, Jillene Chitulangoma, Kemuel Philbrick, Ognjen Gajic, Madeline Weiman, Emily Schmitt, David Pasko, Lioudmila Karnatovskaia\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23743735241272148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To identify medical phrases utilized by the critical care team that may have an unintended impact on the critically ill patient, we administered an anonymous survey to multi-professional critical care team members. We elicited examples of imprecise language that may have a negative emotional impact on the critically ill. Of the 1600 providers surveyed, 265 offered 1379 examples (912 unique) which were clustered into 5 categories. Medical jargon (eg, \\\"riding the vent\\\") was most prevalent (n = 549). There were 217 negative suggestions (eg, \\\"you will feel a stick and a burn\\\"). Hyperboles (eg, \\\"black cloud\\\") were common (n = 198) while homonyms (ie \\\"he fibbed\\\") accounted for 150 examples. Phrases such as \\\"code brown in there\\\" were categorized as metonyms (n = 144). 121 metaphors/similes (eg, \\\"rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic\\\") were provided. Phrases that have the potential to negatively impact critically ill patient perceptions are commonplace in critical care practice. Whether these everyday communication habits lead to an unintended nocebo effect on mental health outcomes of the critically ill deserves further study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"23743735241272148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11311157/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241272148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241272148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了找出重症监护团队使用的可能会对重症患者产生意外影响的医疗用语,我们对重症监护团队的多专业成员进行了匿名调查。我们列举了一些可能会对危重病人产生负面情绪影响的不严谨语言的例子。在接受调查的 1600 名医护人员中,有 265 人提供了 1379 个例子(912 个独特的例子),这些例子被分为 5 类。医学术语(如 "乘坐通风口")最普遍(n = 549)。负面建议有 217 个(例如,"你会感到一阵刺痛和灼烧")。双关语(如 "乌云密布")很常见(n = 198),而同音异义词(如 "他撒谎")占 150 例。诸如 "code brown in there "之类的短语被归类为近义词(n = 144)。提供了 121 个隐喻/比喻(如 "泰坦尼克号上重新安排甲板上的椅子")。在重症监护实践中,有可能对重症患者的认知产生负面影响的用语屡见不鲜。这些日常交流习惯是否会对危重病人的心理健康产生意想不到的影响,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Communication in the ICU: An Unintended Nocebo Effect?

To identify medical phrases utilized by the critical care team that may have an unintended impact on the critically ill patient, we administered an anonymous survey to multi-professional critical care team members. We elicited examples of imprecise language that may have a negative emotional impact on the critically ill. Of the 1600 providers surveyed, 265 offered 1379 examples (912 unique) which were clustered into 5 categories. Medical jargon (eg, "riding the vent") was most prevalent (n = 549). There were 217 negative suggestions (eg, "you will feel a stick and a burn"). Hyperboles (eg, "black cloud") were common (n = 198) while homonyms (ie "he fibbed") accounted for 150 examples. Phrases such as "code brown in there" were categorized as metonyms (n = 144). 121 metaphors/similes (eg, "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic") were provided. Phrases that have the potential to negatively impact critically ill patient perceptions are commonplace in critical care practice. Whether these everyday communication habits lead to an unintended nocebo effect on mental health outcomes of the critically ill deserves further study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Experience
Journal of Patient Experience HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
178
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信