评估代理人对患者临床情况理解的差异。

IF 1.9 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Kristen E Pecanac, Blair P Golden
{"title":"评估代理人对患者临床情况理解的差异。","authors":"Kristen E Pecanac, Blair P Golden","doi":"10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0149OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> One of the key communication skills in shared decision-making is assessing a surrogate's understanding of a patient's clinical situation, which can help facilitate surrogate comprehension and encourage surrogates to share their perspectives. There is uncertainty around best practices for assessing surrogate understanding in shared decision-making to guide training in communication skills. <b>Objective:</b> We sought to determine what questions clinicians used to ask surrogates about the patient's current clinical situation and how surrogates responded. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-seven audio recordings of clinician-surrogate conversations about adult patients who were unable to make their own life-or-death decisions and who being cared for by four clinical teams at two hospitals in the Midwest were qualitatively analyzed using conversation analysis. Ten conversations included clinician questions soliciting surrogate understanding of the patient's situation. Patterns of how surrogates responded to different clinician questions were examined. <b>Results:</b> There were differences in how surrogates responded to various types of clinician solicitations of their understanding. Asking what the surrogates have heard led to a retelling of statements and assessments of the patient's situation. Asking what they know or what has happened led to surrogates responding with a timeline of events. In contrast, asking what is going on or what they understand led to surrogates sharing a more \"big-picture\" understanding. <b>Conclusion:</b> We found that there were differences in how surrogates responded to different clinician solicitations of their understanding. Real-world implications of different strategies, along with surrogate perspectives of those strategies, should be investigated further to elucidate best practices that can be incorporated into communication skills training.</p>","PeriodicalId":72330,"journal":{"name":"ATS scholar","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Assessing Surrogate Understanding of the Patient's Clinical Situation.\",\"authors\":\"Kristen E Pecanac, Blair P Golden\",\"doi\":\"10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0149OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> One of the key communication skills in shared decision-making is assessing a surrogate's understanding of a patient's clinical situation, which can help facilitate surrogate comprehension and encourage surrogates to share their perspectives. There is uncertainty around best practices for assessing surrogate understanding in shared decision-making to guide training in communication skills. <b>Objective:</b> We sought to determine what questions clinicians used to ask surrogates about the patient's current clinical situation and how surrogates responded. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-seven audio recordings of clinician-surrogate conversations about adult patients who were unable to make their own life-or-death decisions and who being cared for by four clinical teams at two hospitals in the Midwest were qualitatively analyzed using conversation analysis. Ten conversations included clinician questions soliciting surrogate understanding of the patient's situation. Patterns of how surrogates responded to different clinician questions were examined. <b>Results:</b> There were differences in how surrogates responded to various types of clinician solicitations of their understanding. Asking what the surrogates have heard led to a retelling of statements and assessments of the patient's situation. Asking what they know or what has happened led to surrogates responding with a timeline of events. In contrast, asking what is going on or what they understand led to surrogates sharing a more \\\"big-picture\\\" understanding. <b>Conclusion:</b> We found that there were differences in how surrogates responded to different clinician solicitations of their understanding. Real-world implications of different strategies, along with surrogate perspectives of those strategies, should be investigated further to elucidate best practices that can be incorporated into communication skills training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATS scholar\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATS scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0149OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATS scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0149OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:共同决策的关键沟通技巧之一是评估代孕母亲对患者临床情况的理解,这有助于促进代孕母亲的理解,并鼓励代孕母亲分享自己的观点。评估共同决策中替代理解以指导沟通技巧培训的最佳做法存在不确定性。目的:我们试图确定临床医生用来询问代理人关于患者当前临床状况的问题,以及代理人如何回应。方法:采用对话分析法对中西部两家医院4个临床小组治疗的不能自主决定生死的成年患者的27段对话录音进行定性分析。10个对话包括临床医生的问题,征求对患者情况的替代理解。研究了代孕母亲对不同临床医生问题的反应模式。结果:代孕母亲对不同类型的临床医生的理解请求有不同的反应。询问代理人听到了什么,导致了对病人情况的陈述和评估的复述。询问他们知道什么或发生了什么,会导致代理人用一系列事件来回应。相比之下,询问发生了什么或他们理解什么会让代理人分享更“大局”的理解。结论:我们发现代孕母亲对不同临床医生提出的理解有不同的反应。应进一步调查不同策略的实际影响,以及这些策略的替代观点,以阐明可纳入沟通技巧培训的最佳做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Assessing Surrogate Understanding of the Patient's Clinical Situation.

Background: One of the key communication skills in shared decision-making is assessing a surrogate's understanding of a patient's clinical situation, which can help facilitate surrogate comprehension and encourage surrogates to share their perspectives. There is uncertainty around best practices for assessing surrogate understanding in shared decision-making to guide training in communication skills. Objective: We sought to determine what questions clinicians used to ask surrogates about the patient's current clinical situation and how surrogates responded. Methods: Twenty-seven audio recordings of clinician-surrogate conversations about adult patients who were unable to make their own life-or-death decisions and who being cared for by four clinical teams at two hospitals in the Midwest were qualitatively analyzed using conversation analysis. Ten conversations included clinician questions soliciting surrogate understanding of the patient's situation. Patterns of how surrogates responded to different clinician questions were examined. Results: There were differences in how surrogates responded to various types of clinician solicitations of their understanding. Asking what the surrogates have heard led to a retelling of statements and assessments of the patient's situation. Asking what they know or what has happened led to surrogates responding with a timeline of events. In contrast, asking what is going on or what they understand led to surrogates sharing a more "big-picture" understanding. Conclusion: We found that there were differences in how surrogates responded to different clinician solicitations of their understanding. Real-world implications of different strategies, along with surrogate perspectives of those strategies, should be investigated further to elucidate best practices that can be incorporated into communication skills training.

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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信