Medical OET · Test 01

Test 01 - Part C - Extract 2

Good morning. My name's Dr Keith Gardiner,

Level: C1 · 66 sentences

Transcript

Good morning.
My name's Dr Keith Gardiner,
and I'd like to talk to you today about some research I've been involved in,
concerning something that affects all health professionals:
staff-patient communication.
Now, firstly, let me reassure you
that in feedback, patients seem positive about the way information is communicated to them.
But I recently decided to explore the issue in more detail when I was in a hospital with a patient
and witnessed for myself what can result when a health care professional assumes they've made themselves clear to a patient,
when in fact they've been anything but.
Luckily, I've had very few complaints made against members of my team,
but the potential is certainly there.
So first, let's start by looking at a typical hospital admission for an in-patient,
and the first communication they have about any procedures they are to undergo.
On arrival, a patient will complete necessary paperwork.
Various staff will talk to them about their treatment during their stay,
which is designed to reduce patient anxiety.
However, from some patients' point of view, this interaction can seem very complex and difficult to take in,
especially at a time when they're not at their best physically or mentally.
So it's doubly important to check that any communication has been understood.
Now, to illustrate what I'm talking about,
let's take a hypothetical situation.
I often use this because it highlights the potential consequences of poor communication.
A man in his 80s is admitted to hospital, despite his protestations,
with ongoing severe back pain.
On investigation, it's found his cancer has spread.
The outlook is poor
and further compounded by his becoming depressed and refusing to eat while in hospital.
A feeding tube is inserted,
a procedure which the patient complies with, but which his family members query.
The doctor on duty updates them, assuming they're aware of the severity of the patient's condition
when in fact no such prognosis has been shared with them.
An extreme case, but a plausible one, nevertheless.
In order to find out exactly what in-patients felt about the service they were receiving in this hospital,
we conducted a patient survey.
The questions were carefully targeted to capture patients' opinions about the effectiveness of the communication they'd been involved in during their stay.
The survey questioned patients on both what they had expected prior to admission,
and what their stay was really like.
These two scores were then used to calculate what's called a 'gap' score.
The survey also included questions to measure the patients' behavioural intention,
that is, how willing they would be to return to the hospital for treatment.
Patients completed the survey themselves,
and results were then processed with the help of medical students.
Now, the survey produced some interesting data about communication, including both praise and complaints.
Clearly in a hospital situation, staff are dealing with confidential and sensitive information,
which must be communicated in private,
a situation which can be difficult to achieve in a large and busy hospital.
However, we scored highly on that point.
And we were also pleased to note...
that staff did manage to communicate in a manner that treated patients with dignity and respect.
Of course, staff also have to ensure patients fully understand what's been said to them.
And this last point's where we received the most negative feedback.
Both patients and relatives noted a tendency for professionals to resort to the use of jargon,
and complex terms when explaining both diagnoses and procedures,
which left some patients confused.
However, patients were generally satisfied with the information about any follow-up treatment provided after discharge.
Also, once we'd sifted through all the results, a clear pattern began to emerge
regarding the care given by nurses, which I found particularly interesting.
I'd assumed that having a number of different nurses attending to a patient during their stay was a good thing,
because you need enough staff to cover the various shifts, and attend to patients' needs.
What I certainly hadn't expected, though,
was for patients to say they felt their recovery was faster when they had to communicate with only a small number of nurses.
In other words, when they were surrounded by familiar faces.
The findings aren't conclusive,
and more investigative work needs to be done on a bigger sample
but it's certainly food for thought.