Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care
Objective: To analyze the communicative contributions of interdisciplinary professionals and family members in enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care. Study Design: Physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains ( n =50) who attended the Program to Enhance Relational and Commu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of perinatology 2009-04, Vol.29 (4), p.310-316 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 316 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 310 |
| container_title | Journal of perinatology |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Lamiani, G Meyer, E C Browning, D M Brodsky, D Todres, I D |
| description | Objective:
To analyze the communicative contributions of interdisciplinary professionals and family members in enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care.
Study Design:
Physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains (
n
=50) who attended the Program to Enhance Relational and Communication Skills, participated in a scenario of a preterm infant with severe complications enacted by actors portraying family members. Twenty-four family meetings were videotaped and analyzed with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).
Result:
Practitioners talked more than actor-family members (70 vs 30%). Physicians provided more biomedical information than psychosocial professionals (
P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/jp.2008.228 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67084987</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A197364369</galeid><sourcerecordid>A197364369</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-f7f05e1f84d429732a912eae33f808a0ad5c1af2a35a9a8da84bedb4288e0aa43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kt9rFDEQx4NY7Fl98l0Whb7onvm1m-zjUawKhb60z2Fud9LmyGXPJFvof9-sd3BWKgkkZD7zzXwnIeQDo0tGhf622S05pXrJuX5FFkyqtm4aKV6TBVVS1FrI9pS8TWlD6RxUb8gp65jUjHYLcrkK4B-TS9VoKwzQZxyqwVnr-snnqh_DA8YE2Y0hVS5UAccAGXzZZwzJPWDVQ8R35MSCT_j-sJ6R28vvNxc_66vrH78uVld1L5XKtVWWNsisloPknRIcOsYRUAirqQYKQ9MzsBxEAx3oAbRc47CWXGukAFKckfO97i6OvydM2Wxd6tF7KIVNybSKatlpVcDP_4CbcYrFazK8lbRpWatnuU__pTiVVJZ5lLoDj8YFO-YI_XyvWbFiopWi7Qq1fIEqY8CtK21E68r5s4TzvxLuEXy-T6Of_rT6OfhlD_ZxTCmiNbvothAfDaNm_gFmszPzDyg160J_PFia1lscjuzhyQvwdQ-kEgp3GI-eX9J7AvFstvc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220404404</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Lamiani, G ; Meyer, E C ; Browning, D M ; Brodsky, D ; Todres, I D</creator><creatorcontrib>Lamiani, G ; Meyer, E C ; Browning, D M ; Brodsky, D ; Todres, I D</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Objective:
To analyze the communicative contributions of interdisciplinary professionals and family members in enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care.
Study Design:
Physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains (
n
=50) who attended the Program to Enhance Relational and Communication Skills, participated in a scenario of a preterm infant with severe complications enacted by actors portraying family members. Twenty-four family meetings were videotaped and analyzed with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).
Result:
Practitioners talked more than actor-family members (70 vs 30%). Physicians provided more biomedical information than psychosocial professionals (
P
<0.001), and less psychosocial information than nurses, and social workers and chaplains (
P
<0.05;
P
<0.001). Social workers and chaplains asked more psychosocial questions than physicians and nurses (MD=
P
<0.005; RN=
P
<0.05), focused more on family's opinion and understanding (MD=
P
<0.01; RN=
P
<0.001), and more frequently expressed agreement and approval than physicians (
P
<0.05). No differences were found across disciplines in providing emotional support.
Conclusion:
Findings suggest the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and highlight areas for improvement such as using silence, asking psychosocial questions and eliciting family perspectives that are associated with family satisfaction.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0743-8346</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5543</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/jp.2008.228</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19148109</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Nature Publishing Group US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clergy ; Communication ; Communication skills ; Complications ; Education ; Empathy ; Euthanasia, Passive - psychology ; Families & family life ; Family Nursing ; Federal regulation ; Female ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Infant, Premature, Diseases - psychology ; Intensive care ; Intensive Care, Neonatal - psychology ; Interdisciplinary aspects ; Interdisciplinary Communication ; Male ; Management ; Medical personnel ; Medical sociology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meetings ; Neonatal care ; Neonatal intensive care ; Neonates ; Newborn babies ; Nurses ; original-article ; Parents & parenting ; Patient Care Team ; Patient Simulation ; Pediatric Surgery ; Pediatrics ; Physician and patient ; Physicians ; Premature babies ; Professional ethics ; Professional-Family Relations ; Professionals ; Questions ; Role Playing ; Social aspects ; Social Support ; Social workers ; Verbal communication ; Workers ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>Journal of perinatology, 2009-04, Vol.29 (4), p.310-316</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature America, Inc. 2009</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Nature Publishing Group</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Apr 2009</rights><rights>Nature Publishing Group 2009.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-f7f05e1f84d429732a912eae33f808a0ad5c1af2a35a9a8da84bedb4288e0aa43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-f7f05e1f84d429732a912eae33f808a0ad5c1af2a35a9a8da84bedb4288e0aa43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/jp.2008.228$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1038/jp.2008.228$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19148109$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lamiani, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, E C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browning, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todres, I D</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care</title><title>Journal of perinatology</title><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Objective:
To analyze the communicative contributions of interdisciplinary professionals and family members in enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care.
Study Design:
Physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains (
n
=50) who attended the Program to Enhance Relational and Communication Skills, participated in a scenario of a preterm infant with severe complications enacted by actors portraying family members. Twenty-four family meetings were videotaped and analyzed with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).
Result:
Practitioners talked more than actor-family members (70 vs 30%). Physicians provided more biomedical information than psychosocial professionals (
P
<0.001), and less psychosocial information than nurses, and social workers and chaplains (
P
<0.05;
P
<0.001). Social workers and chaplains asked more psychosocial questions than physicians and nurses (MD=
P
<0.005; RN=
P
<0.05), focused more on family's opinion and understanding (MD=
P
<0.01; RN=
P
<0.001), and more frequently expressed agreement and approval than physicians (
P
<0.05). No differences were found across disciplines in providing emotional support.
Conclusion:
Findings suggest the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and highlight areas for improvement such as using silence, asking psychosocial questions and eliciting family perspectives that are associated with family satisfaction.]]></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clergy</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Communication skills</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Empathy</subject><subject>Euthanasia, Passive - psychology</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Family Nursing</subject><subject>Federal regulation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Infant, Premature, Diseases - psychology</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Intensive Care, Neonatal - psychology</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary aspects</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary Communication</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical sociology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meetings</subject><subject>Neonatal care</subject><subject>Neonatal intensive care</subject><subject>Neonates</subject><subject>Newborn babies</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>original-article</subject><subject>Parents & parenting</subject><subject>Patient Care Team</subject><subject>Patient Simulation</subject><subject>Pediatric Surgery</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Physician and patient</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Premature babies</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Professional-Family Relations</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Role Playing</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Support</subject><subject>Social workers</subject><subject>Verbal communication</subject><subject>Workers</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>0743-8346</issn><issn>1476-5543</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kt9rFDEQx4NY7Fl98l0Whb7onvm1m-zjUawKhb60z2Fud9LmyGXPJFvof9-sd3BWKgkkZD7zzXwnIeQDo0tGhf622S05pXrJuX5FFkyqtm4aKV6TBVVS1FrI9pS8TWlD6RxUb8gp65jUjHYLcrkK4B-TS9VoKwzQZxyqwVnr-snnqh_DA8YE2Y0hVS5UAccAGXzZZwzJPWDVQ8R35MSCT_j-sJ6R28vvNxc_66vrH78uVld1L5XKtVWWNsisloPknRIcOsYRUAirqQYKQ9MzsBxEAx3oAbRc47CWXGukAFKckfO97i6OvydM2Wxd6tF7KIVNybSKatlpVcDP_4CbcYrFazK8lbRpWatnuU__pTiVVJZ5lLoDj8YFO-YI_XyvWbFiopWi7Qq1fIEqY8CtK21E68r5s4TzvxLuEXy-T6Of_rT6OfhlD_ZxTCmiNbvothAfDaNm_gFmszPzDyg160J_PFia1lscjuzhyQvwdQ-kEgp3GI-eX9J7AvFstvc</recordid><startdate>20090401</startdate><enddate>20090401</enddate><creator>Lamiani, G</creator><creator>Meyer, E C</creator><creator>Browning, D M</creator><creator>Brodsky, D</creator><creator>Todres, I D</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group US</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090401</creationdate><title>Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care</title><author>Lamiani, G ; Meyer, E C ; Browning, D M ; Brodsky, D ; Todres, I D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-f7f05e1f84d429732a912eae33f808a0ad5c1af2a35a9a8da84bedb4288e0aa43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clergy</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Communication skills</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Empathy</topic><topic>Euthanasia, Passive - psychology</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Family Nursing</topic><topic>Federal regulation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Infant, Premature, Diseases - psychology</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Intensive Care, Neonatal - psychology</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary aspects</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary Communication</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical sociology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meetings</topic><topic>Neonatal care</topic><topic>Neonatal intensive care</topic><topic>Neonates</topic><topic>Newborn babies</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>original-article</topic><topic>Parents & parenting</topic><topic>Patient Care Team</topic><topic>Patient Simulation</topic><topic>Pediatric Surgery</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Physician and patient</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Premature babies</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Professional-Family Relations</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Role Playing</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Support</topic><topic>Social workers</topic><topic>Verbal communication</topic><topic>Workers</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lamiani, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, E C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browning, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todres, I D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of perinatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lamiani, G</au><au>Meyer, E C</au><au>Browning, D M</au><au>Brodsky, D</au><au>Todres, I D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care</atitle><jtitle>Journal of perinatology</jtitle><stitle>J Perinatol</stitle><addtitle>J Perinatol</addtitle><date>2009-04-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>310</spage><epage>316</epage><pages>310-316</pages><issn>0743-8346</issn><eissn>1476-5543</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Objective:
To analyze the communicative contributions of interdisciplinary professionals and family members in enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care.
Study Design:
Physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains (
n
=50) who attended the Program to Enhance Relational and Communication Skills, participated in a scenario of a preterm infant with severe complications enacted by actors portraying family members. Twenty-four family meetings were videotaped and analyzed with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS).
Result:
Practitioners talked more than actor-family members (70 vs 30%). Physicians provided more biomedical information than psychosocial professionals (
P
<0.001), and less psychosocial information than nurses, and social workers and chaplains (
P
<0.05;
P
<0.001). Social workers and chaplains asked more psychosocial questions than physicians and nurses (MD=
P
<0.005; RN=
P
<0.05), focused more on family's opinion and understanding (MD=
P
<0.01; RN=
P
<0.001), and more frequently expressed agreement and approval than physicians (
P
<0.05). No differences were found across disciplines in providing emotional support.
Conclusion:
Findings suggest the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and highlight areas for improvement such as using silence, asking psychosocial questions and eliciting family perspectives that are associated with family satisfaction.]]></abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group US</pub><pmid>19148109</pmid><doi>10.1038/jp.2008.228</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0743-8346 |
| ispartof | Journal of perinatology, 2009-04, Vol.29 (4), p.310-316 |
| issn | 0743-8346 1476-5543 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67084987 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Adult Clergy Communication Communication skills Complications Education Empathy Euthanasia, Passive - psychology Families & family life Family Nursing Federal regulation Female Humans Infant, Newborn Infant, Premature, Diseases - psychology Intensive care Intensive Care, Neonatal - psychology Interdisciplinary aspects Interdisciplinary Communication Male Management Medical personnel Medical sociology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meetings Neonatal care Neonatal intensive care Neonates Newborn babies Nurses original-article Parents & parenting Patient Care Team Patient Simulation Pediatric Surgery Pediatrics Physician and patient Physicians Premature babies Professional ethics Professional-Family Relations Professionals Questions Role Playing Social aspects Social Support Social workers Verbal communication Workers Workshops |
| title | Analysis of enacted difficult conversations in neonatal intensive care |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T22%3A48%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20of%20enacted%20difficult%20conversations%20in%20neonatal%20intensive%20care&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20perinatology&rft.au=Lamiani,%20G&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=310&rft.epage=316&rft.pages=310-316&rft.issn=0743-8346&rft.eissn=1476-5543&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/jp.2008.228&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA197364369%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220404404&rft_id=info:pmid/19148109&rft_galeid=A197364369&rfr_iscdi=true |