Titre
Well, you have hepatic metastases: Use of technical language by medical students in simulated patient interviews.
Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Bourquin, C.
Auteure/Auteur
Stiefel, F.
Auteure/Auteur
Mast, M.S.
Auteure/Auteur
Bonvin, R.
Auteure/Auteur
Berney, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
ISSN
1873-5134
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2015
Volume
98
Numéro
3
Première page
323
Dernière page/numéro d’article
330
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
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.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_B6AA6DB97956
PMID
Date de création
2015-01-23T13:51:41.802Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-21T04:50:30Z
Fichier(s)![Vignette d'image]()
En cours de chargement...
Nom
BIB_B6AA6DB97956.P001.pdf
Version du manuscrit
preprint
Taille
386.05 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
PID Serval
serval:BIB_B6AA6DB97956.P001
Somme de contrôle
(MD5):1fcfc4235f4ee1228d5dfe57862f63fc