Well, you have hepatic metastases: Use of technical language by medical students in simulated patient interviews.
Details
Request a copy Under indefinite embargo.UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_B6AA6DB97956
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Well, you have hepatic metastases: Use of technical language by medical students in simulated patient interviews.
Journal
Patient Education and Counseling
ISSN
1873-5134 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0738-3991
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2015
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
98
Number
3
Pages
323-330
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This research explored medical students' use and perception of technical language in a practical training setting to enhance skills in breaking bad news in oncology.
METHODS: Terms potentially confusing to laypeople were selected from 108 videotaped interviews conducted in an undergraduate Communication Skills Training. A subset of these terms was included in a questionnaire completed by students (N=111) with the aim of gaining insight into their perceptions of different speech registers and of patient understanding. Excerpts of interviews were analyzed qualitatively to investigate students' communication strategies with respect to these technical terms.
RESULTS: Fewer than half of the terms were clarified. Students checked for simulated patients' understanding of the terms palliative and metastasis/to metastasize in 22-23% of the interviews. The term ambulatory was spontaneously explained in 75% of the interviews, hepatic and metastasis/to metastasize in 22-24%. Most provided explanations were in plain language; metastasis/to metastasize and ganglion/ganglionic were among terms most frequently explained in technical language.
CONCLUSION: A significant number of terms potentially unfamiliar and confusing to patients remained unclarified in training interviews conducted by senior medical students, even when they perceived the terms as technical.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This exploration may offer important insights for improving future physicians' skills.
METHODS: Terms potentially confusing to laypeople were selected from 108 videotaped interviews conducted in an undergraduate Communication Skills Training. A subset of these terms was included in a questionnaire completed by students (N=111) with the aim of gaining insight into their perceptions of different speech registers and of patient understanding. Excerpts of interviews were analyzed qualitatively to investigate students' communication strategies with respect to these technical terms.
RESULTS: Fewer than half of the terms were clarified. Students checked for simulated patients' understanding of the terms palliative and metastasis/to metastasize in 22-23% of the interviews. The term ambulatory was spontaneously explained in 75% of the interviews, hepatic and metastasis/to metastasize in 22-24%. Most provided explanations were in plain language; metastasis/to metastasize and ganglion/ganglionic were among terms most frequently explained in technical language.
CONCLUSION: A significant number of terms potentially unfamiliar and confusing to patients remained unclarified in training interviews conducted by senior medical students, even when they perceived the terms as technical.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This exploration may offer important insights for improving future physicians' skills.
Keywords
Adult, Communication, Education, Medical, Undergraduate/methods, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Medical Oncology/education, Neoplasms/psychology, Patient Simulation, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Students, Medical/psychology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Videotape Recording
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
23/01/2015 14:51
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:24
Usage data
