Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers.
Saved in:
| Title: | Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hall, Sarah1 Sarah.Hall@uvu.edu, Ballard, Michael2 |
| Source: | Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education. Apr2024, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p170-186. 17p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Qualitative research, *Clinical competence, *Communication, *Research methodology, *Hearing disorders, *Sign language, *Communication barriers, Medical errors, Interviewing, Hospital patients, Deafness, Acquisition of data, Treatment delay (Medicine), Health equity, Health Belief Model |
| Abstract: | Deaf patients who communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) experience communication challenges leading to medical errors, treatment delays, and health disparities. Research on Deaf patient communication preferences is sparse. Researchers conducted focus groups based on the Health Belief Model with culturally Deaf patients and interpreters. The ASL focus groups were interpreted and transcribed into written English, verified by a third-party interpreting agency, and uploaded into NVivo. Deductive coding was used to identify communication methods and inductive coding was used to identify themes within each. Writing back-and-forth introduced challenges related to English proficiency, medical terminology, poor penmanship, and tendencies of providers to abbreviate. Participants had various speechreading abilities and described challenges with mask mandates. Multiple issues were identified with family and friends as proxy interpreters, including a lack of training, confidentiality issues, emotional support, and patient autonomy. Video remote interpreter challenges included technical, environmental, and interpreter qualification concerns. Participants overwhelmingly preferred on-site interpreters for communication clarity. While there was a preference for direct care, many acknowledged this is not always feasible due to lack of providers fluent in ASL. Access to on-site interpreters is vital for many Deaf patients to provide full access to critical medical information. Budget allocation for on-call interpreters is important in emergency settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Deaf patients who communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) experience communication challenges leading to medical errors, treatment delays, and health disparities. Research on Deaf patient communication preferences is sparse. Researchers conducted focus groups based on the Health Belief Model with culturally Deaf patients and interpreters. The ASL focus groups were interpreted and transcribed into written English, verified by a third-party interpreting agency, and uploaded into NVivo. Deductive coding was used to identify communication methods and inductive coding was used to identify themes within each. Writing back-and-forth introduced challenges related to English proficiency, medical terminology, poor penmanship, and tendencies of providers to abbreviate. Participants had various speechreading abilities and described challenges with mask mandates. Multiple issues were identified with family and friends as proxy interpreters, including a lack of training, confidentiality issues, emotional support, and patient autonomy. Video remote interpreter challenges included technical, environmental, and interpreter qualification concerns. Participants overwhelmingly preferred on-site interpreters for communication clarity. While there was a preference for direct care, many acknowledged this is not always feasible due to lack of providers fluent in ASL. Access to on-site interpreters is vital for many Deaf patients to provide full access to critical medical information. Budget allocation for on-call interpreters is important in emergency settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10814159 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/deafed/enad061 |
