RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare professionals experience difficulties in discussing sexual health with their patients. The aim of this review was to synthesize results of studies on communication practices in interactions about sexual health in medical settings, to offer healthcare professionals suggestions on how to communicate about this topic. METHODS: We searched for studies using five databases. Reference lists and specialist bibliographies were searched to identify additional studies. We included discourse analytic studies that used recordings of medical consultations. RESULTS: We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria. Findings were synthesized into seven categories of practices deployed by patients and healthcare professionals when talking about sexual health: avoiding delicate terms (1), delaying potentially delicate words and issues (2), using assumptive talk (3), generalized advice-giving (4), deploying patients' talk (5), depersonalization (6), and patient-initiated advice (7). CONCLUSION: Practices indicate the delicacy associated with discussing sexual health issues, but results also shed light on practices that can help professionals to deal with this delicacy, and to be responsive to patients' needs and concerns. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings will assist healthcare professionals in broaching topics related to sexual health so they can help patients deal with challenges that affect their sexual health and overall well-being.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Relevance to clinical practice The findings from the study highlighting family involvement, high-quality communication and flexible visiting policy as central aspects of family care may inspire clinicians to identify aspects of everyday family care in their ICUs calling for further improvement. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe family involvement, communication practices and visiting policies in adult ICUs. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. METHOD: A questionnaire consisting of 11 sections was developed, pilot tested and e-mailed to 196 ICUs. The participants were intensive care nurses in adult ICUs in four Nordic countries. RESULTS: The survey was conducted in October to December 2019. The response rate was 81% (158/196) of the invited ICUs. Most of the units had fewer than 11 beds. Family participation in patient care, including involvement in ward rounds and presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, varied between the countries, whereas most families in all countries were involved in decision-making. Family conferences were generally initiated by staff or family members. Children under 18 did not always receive information directly from the staff, and parents were not advised about how to inform their children. Although most respondents described open visiting, restrictions were also mentioned in free-text comments. CONCLUSIONS: The level of family care in ICUs in the four Nordic countries is generally based on nurses' discretion. Although most Nordic ICUs report having an open or flexible visiting policy, a wide range of potential restrictions still exists. Children and young relatives are not routinely followed up. Family members are included in communication and decision-making, whereas family involvement in daily care, ward rounds and family-witnessed resuscitation seem to be areas with a potential for improvement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose There is an absence of evidence-based guidance to support workplace stakeholders in the effective delivery of return-to-work (RTW) messages. Our study examines the specific RTW communication practices and their impact on the management of work disability. Methods Within two large and complex healthcare organizations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with workplace stakeholders (e.g., supervisors, union representatives, disability management professionals and workers' compensation representatives) and workers who had previously experienced sickness absence related to an occupational injury or illness. For workplace stakeholders interview questions asked about their roles and responsibilities in the RTW process, and specific communication strategies and messages that were used at different phases of the RTW process. For worker participants, interview questions explored RTW experiences and the impact of communication on work re-integration. An interpretative descriptive approach was used to inductively examine themes from interviews to create ways of understanding phenomena that yielded applied findings. Results Forty participants were interviewed including workplace stakeholders and workers. Participants frequently described effective RTW communication as messages that were delivered by a workplace stakeholder that included the content required by an injured worker to navigate the organizational disability management process and utilized specific strategies to address the perceived attitudes and perceptions held by an injured worker regarding work re-integration. Workplace stakeholders described five specific communication strategies including relaying messages of support, optimizing the timing of communication, careful word choice, framing messages, and tailoring communication to the injured worker.  Conclusion RTW communication is an active process that requires a strategic approach. Effective communication practices represent an important strategy for workplace stakeholders to address the barriers held by injured workers and foster early and sustained RTW.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the information providers share with patients when ordering a co-test, or combined human papillomavirus (HPV) and Papanicolaou (Pap) test, for cervical cancer screening. We assessed provider perceptions of such communication practices with female patients aged 30-60 years. METHODS: We analyzed data from 98 providers in 15 Federally Qualified Health Center clinics across Illinois (2009-2010). RESULTS: About 70% of the providers reported that when ordering a co-test, they would usually or always communicate information about the HPV test to their patients, explain the test detects a sexually transmitted infection, and discuss how the test results may determine their next screening interval. Most (>85%) reported that they were comfortable discussing co-test results. Compared with concordant positive results (HPV positive/Pap positive), providers were more likely to perceive that discordant results (HPV positive/Pap negative) would be too complex for patients to understand (25% vs. 15%, p = 0.006), and make patients feel less assured that they were getting the best standard of care (67% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As HPV testing plays a more prominent role in cervical cancer screening, more attention should be given to communications between providers and patients about the benefits and harms of different screening options.