PubMed · 16467355
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
John Launer. 2006-02-08. Personal services.. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed%2Fhcl010
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
On the theme of Linus Geisler's nine steps for a successful consultation between doctor and patient, the ability for self-criticism, the ability to be able to listen to oneself and the value of the doctor-patient relationship in the context of medical practice will be discussed. Subsequently, the framework of the consultation, the consulting room atmosphere and the complete setting of the consultation will be dealt with. The importance of active listening and the recognition of all messages, both verbal and from body language, will be particularly emphasized. The capability for empathy is presented as the necessary bridge to recognition of the feelings and inner world of the patient. Because one only sees what one is looking for and only recognizes what one knows, the recognition of typical complaints presented by patients in a consultation represents the "something" which must be specifically elucidated. The problems and symptoms which the patient brings to the doctor are surrounded by a ring of fears and apprehensions. For this reason it is decisive to uncover the accompanying cloud of fears and apprehensions with appropriate questions, to correctly assign the unsettling symptoms of the patient and to be able to correctly interpret them. As illustrated by the language of nature - the translation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) triplets into amino acids - the translation of biological, psychological and social aspects of the complaints symptomatic into the level of diagnosis and the translation of the referential, social and affective meaning of the expressions used by the patient, into the level of the significance will be discussed. The role of the doctor here is that of a producer of context and a skilled translator. In the management of functional disorders and chronic diseases the construction of a shared reality is important. The therapeutic function of consultations is due to an introduction of metaphors as bridges - bridges to an improved understanding of the body, the self and the world. The role of the physician here is that of a moderator, motivator an accompanying person. Finally, Jaspers levels of good doctoring (natural science or causal level, nursing level, communicative-existential level) are stressed and the importance of a good patient-physician relationship for a patient-centered medicine is underlined.
PURPOSE: This paper presents findings from a qualitative investigation of cultural awareness that medical students developed in the context of providing medical care to refugees. Our evaluation question was: What kinds of cultural awareness and communication lessons do medical students derive from clinical encounters with refugee patients? METHODS: Thirty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted to debrief a sample of 27 medical students. A multidisciplinary research team analyzed the debriefing texts following an interpretive "immersion-crystallization" approach. RESULTS: Three domains in cultural awareness training encompassed 13 key lessons or themes. Students reported enhanced awareness about the use of interpretation services and cross-cultural communication. A second set of lessons reflected awareness of the refugees' cultural background, and a third learning component involved experiences of cultural humility. The refugee plight prompted reflection on the students' own culture, and validated the rationale for empathetic care and patient empowerment. CONCLUSION: As medical school curricula incorporate more cultural diversity training, a patient-based learning approach with selected 'hands-on' experiences will create opportunities for students to increase their cultural sensitivity and competency. This program's experiential model indicates that after refugee medical encounters, these beginning medical students reported greater awareness of communication issues, and sensitivity toward religious values, family patterns, gender roles and ethnomedical treatments. It will be important to test these kinds of preceptor/apprenticeship models of cultural sensitivity training at later stages of medical training; in order to assess long-term effects.
BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Adequate discussion of the risks and benefits associated with different choices is often required if involvement is to be genuine and effective. Achieving both the adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for any screening programme. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication in general, but the effectiveness of different strategies has not previously been examined. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of personalised risk communication for consumers making decisions about taking screening tests. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1985 to December 2005), EMBASE (1985 to December 2005), CINAHL (1985 to December 2005), and PsycINFO (1989 to December 2005). Follow-up searches involved hand searching Preventive Medicine, citation searches on seven authors, and searching reference lists of articles. For the original version of this review (Edwards 2003c) we also searched CancerLit (1985 to 2001) and Science Citation Index Expanded (searched March 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials addressing the decision by consumers of whether or not to undergo screening, incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' and reporting cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes. A 'personalised risk communication element' is based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history). It may be calculated from an individual's risk factors using formulae derived from epidemiological data, and presented as an absolute or relative risk or as a risk score, or it may be categorised into, for example, high, medium or low risk groups. It may be less detailed still, involving a listing, for example, of a consumer's risk factors as a focus for discussion and intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed each trial for quality and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of the intervention, and relevant outcome data, along with items relating to methodological quality. We then used standard statistical methods of the Consumers and Communication Review Group to combine data using MetaView, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different condition for screening, and studies based only on high risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included, nine of which were added in the 2006 update of this review. There was weak evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication (whether written, spoken or visually presented) increases uptake of screening tests (odds ratio (OR) 1.31 (random effects, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.77). In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.81), and three other trials with heterogenous outcome measures showed improvements in knowledge with personalised risk interventions. There was little other evidence from these studies that the interventions promoted or achieved informed decision making by consumers about participation in screening. More detailed personalised risk communication may be associated with a smaller increase in uptake of tests. That is, for personalised risk communication which used and presented numerical calculations of risk, the OR for test uptake was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.03). For risk estimates or calculations which were categorised into high, medium or low strata of risk, the OR was 1.42 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.89). For risk communication that simply listed personal risk factors the OR was 1.42 (95% CI 0.95 to 2.12). Over half of the included studies assessed interventions in the context of mammography. These studies showed similar effects to the overall dataset. The five studies examining risk communication in high risk individuals (individuals at higher risk due to, for example, a family history of breast cancer or other conditions) showed larger odds ratios for uptake of tests than the other studies (random effects OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.88). There were insufficient data from the included studies to report odds ratios on other key outcomes such as: intention to take tests, anxiety, satisfaction with decisions, decisional conflict, knowledge and resource use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Personalised risk communication (as currently implemented in the included studies) may have a small effect on increasing uptake of screening tests, and there is only limited evidence that the interventions have promoted or achieved informed decision making by consumers.