View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 176131222
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hall%2C+Sarah%22">Hall, Sarah</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> Sarah.Hall@uvu.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ballard%2C+Michael%22">Ballard, Michael</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Deaf+Studies+%26+Deaf+Education%22">Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education</searchLink>. Apr2024, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p170-186. 17p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+research%22">Qualitative research</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinical+competence%22">Clinical competence</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication%22">Communication</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hearing+disorders%22">Hearing disorders</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sign+language%22">Sign language</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+barriers%22">Communication barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+errors%22">Medical errors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviewing%22">Interviewing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hospital+patients%22">Hospital patients</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Acquisition+of+data%22">Acquisition of data</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Treatment+delay+%28Medicine%29%22">Treatment delay (Medicine)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+equity%22">Health equity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Belief+Model%22">Health Belief Model</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>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.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=176131222
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1093/deafed/enad061
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 170
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hearing disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sign language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical errors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviewing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hospital patients
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Deafness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Acquisition of data
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Treatment delay (Medicine)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health equity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health Belief Model
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hall, Sarah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ballard, Michael
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Text: Apr2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 10814159
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1