A Method to Quantify Residents’ Jargon Use During Counseling of Standardized Patients About Cancer Screening
- 286 Downloads
Jargon is a barrier to effective patient-physician communication, especially when health literacy is low or the topic is complicated. Jargon is addressed by medical schools and residency programs, but reducing jargon usage by the many physicians already in practice may require the population-scale methods used in Quality Improvement.
To assess the amount of jargon used and explained during discussions about prostate or breast cancer screening. Effective communication is recommended before screening for prostate or breast cancer because of the large number of false-positive results and the possible complications from evaluation or treatment.
Primary care internal medicine residents.
Transcripts of 86 conversations between residents and standardized patients were abstracted using an explicit-criteria data dictionary. Time lag from jargon words to explanations was measured using “statements,” each of which contains one subject and one predicate.
Duplicate abstraction revealed reliability κ = 0.92. The average number of unique jargon words per transcript was 19.6 (SD = 6.1); the total jargon count was 53.6 (SD = 27.2). There was an average of 4.5 jargon-explanations per transcript (SD = 2.3). The ratio of explained to total jargon was 0.15. When jargon was explained, the average time lag from the first usage to the explanation was 8.4 statements (SD = 13.4).
The large number of jargon words and low number of explanations suggest that many patients may not understand counseling about cancer screening tests. Educational programs and faculty development courses should continue to discourage jargon usage. The methods presented here may be useful for feedback and quality improvement efforts.
KeywordsCancer Screening Health Literacy Breast Cancer Screening Standardize Patient Prostate Cancer Screening
Lindsay Deuster was supported by a training grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (T35-HL72483-24). Dr. Farrell was supported in part by grant K01HL072530 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. An earlier version of this paper was presented as a poster at the 2007 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. The authors are grateful to Dr. Jeffrey Stein for assistance with educational workshops and transcript proofreading, and to Dr. Richard Frankel for very helpful critique and suggestions about the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
- 2.Roter DL, Hall JA, eds. Doctors Talking with Patients, Patients Talking with Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Auburn House: Westport, Connecticut; 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.Coulehan JL, Block MR. The medical interview: mastering skills for clinical practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.; 2006:409. xix.Google Scholar
- 5.Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer A, Kindig D, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. National Academies Press: Washington, DC; 2004.Google Scholar
- 8.The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company: 2006.Google Scholar
- 9.American Academy of Family Physicians. Summary of AAFP Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services, Revision 6.4. 2007 [accessed 06/04/2008]; Available from: http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/exam.html.
- 10.American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(6):480–4.Google Scholar
- 11.American Urological Association. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. Oncology. 2000;14(2):267–72. 277–8, 280.Google Scholar
- 13.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):915–6.Google Scholar
- 14.Veterans Health Administration, ed. VHA Handbook 1120.2 Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Program. Department of Veterans Affairs: Washington, DC; 1999.Google Scholar
- 17.Donovan J, Deuster L, Christopher SA, Farrell, MH. Residents’ precautionary discussion of emotions during communication about cancer screening, poster at 2007 annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
- 18.Donovan JJ, Farrell MH, Deuster L, Christopher SA. “Precautionary empathy” by child health providers after newborn screening. Poster at International Conference on Communication and Health Care, Charleston, SC; 2007.Google Scholar
- 19.Farrell MH, Deuster L, Donovan J, Christopher SA. Pediatric residents’ use of jargon during counseling about newborn genetic screening results. Pediatrics, in press, August 2008.Google Scholar
- 26.Graber DA. The Theoretical Base: Schema Theory. In: Graber DA, ed. Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York: Longman; 1988:27–31.Google Scholar
- 30.Roter D. Roter Interaction Analysis System Coding Manual. [accessed 06/04/2008]; Available from: http://www.rias.org/manual.
- 31.Feinstein A. Clinical Epidemiology: The Architecture of Clinical Research. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985.Google Scholar
- 32.Stedman TL. Stedman’s medical dictionary. 28Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 20061 v. (various pagings).Google Scholar
- 33.Farrell MH. R01 HL086691, Improvement of communication process and outcomes after newborn genetic screening. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Medical College of Wisconsin: 2008.Google Scholar