Advertisement

Effective Communication—Tips and Tricks

  • Philip F. Stahel
  • Nathan Butler
Chapter

Abstract

Engaging, effective and transparent communication between physicians and their patients, the patients’ family members, and other medical staff is paramount patient safety and for building the foundation of the physician-patient relationship. Understanding the needs, wishes and beliefs of patients helps delineate their care plan, improve their outcomes and greatly decrease the risk of litigation. Physicians and other members of the health care team have adopted the use of standardized communication tools to ensure vital information is shared and the mutually understood. The use of mnemonic algorithms and the implementation of safety system practices adopted from other high-risk domains are helpful tools to increase patient safety in surgery.

Keywords

Communication Patient safety AIDET SBAR Preventing complications 

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152(9):1423–33.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, Galajda J, Meredith L, Sangster M. Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control. 1999;3(1):25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffen FD, Stephens LS, Alexander JB, Bailey HR, Maizel SE, Sutton BH, Posner KL. The American College of Surgeons’ closed claims study: new insights for improving care. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:561–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Rogers SO, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:533–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stein PS, Aalboe JA, Savage MW, Scott AM. Strategies for communicating with older dental patients. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(2):159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee S, Chen L, Ma GX, Fang CY. What is lacking in patient-physician communication: perspectives from Asian American breast cancer patients and oncologists. J Behav Health. 2012;1:2.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Studer Q, Robinson BC, Cook K. The HCAHPS handbook. Gulf Breeze: Fire Starter Publishing; 2010. p. 310.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, MacLean CH, Solomon DH, Reuben DB, Roth CP, Kamberg CJ, Adams J, Young RT, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(9):665–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stahel PF. Learning from aviation safety: a call for formal “readbacks” in surgery. Patient Saf Surg. 2008;2(1):21.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prabhakar H, Cooper JB, Sabel A, Weckbach S, Mehler PS, Stahel PF. Introducing standardized “readbacks” to improve patient safety in surgery: a prospective survey in 92 providers at a public safety-net hospital. BMC Surg. 2012;12:8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stahel PF. The tenth year of the “Universal Protocol”: are our patients safer today? Bone Joint360. 2014;3:7–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arora V, Gangireddy S, Mehrotra A, Ginde R, Tormey M, Meltzer D. Ability of hospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(2):199–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suk M, Stiefel E. Preventing complications in orthopedic communication. In: Archdeacon M, Anglen JO, Ostrum RF, Hersovici Jr D, editors. Prevention and management of common fracture complications. Thorofare: SLACK, Inc.; 2012. p. 362.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wen L, Kosowsky J. When doctors don’t listen. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2012. p. 334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsDenver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado, School of MedicineDenverUSA
  2. 2.West Virginia School of Osteopathic MedicineLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations