RESUMO
The way clinicians communicate with parents during pregnancy about congenital heart disease (CHD) can significantly influence parental understanding of and psychological response to the diagnosis. A necessary first step to improving communication used in fetal cardiology consultations is to understand and describe the language currently used, which this paper aims to do. Nineteen initial fetal cardiology consultations with parents were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent coders. A codebook was inductively developed and applied to all transcripts. The finalized coding was used to characterize fetal cardiologists' language. We identified four discourse styles employed in fetal cardiology consultations: small talk, medical, plain, and person-centered. Plain language was used to define and emphasize the meaning of medical language. Person-centered language was used to emphasize the baby as a whole person. Each consultation included all four discourse styles, with plain and medical used most frequently. Person-centered was used less frequently and mostly occurred near the end of the encounters; whether this is the ideal balance of discourse styles is unknown. Clinicians also used person-centered language (as opposed to disease-centered language), which is recommended by medical societies. Future studies should investigate the ideal balance of discourse styles and the effects of clinician discourse styles on family outcomes, including parents' decision-making, psychological adjustment, and quality of life.
RESUMO
Few studies have empirically examined patient-clinician conversations to assess how intimate partner violence (IPV) screening is performed. Our study sought to examine audio-recorded first obstetric encounters' IPV screening conversations to describe and categorize communication approaches and explore associations with patient disclosure. We analyzed 247 patient encounters with 47 providers. IPV screening occurred in 95% of visits: 57% used direct questions, 25% used indirect questions, 17% repeated IPV screening later in the visit, 11% framed questions with a reason for asking, and 10% described IPV types. Patients disclosed IPV in 71 (28.7%) visits. There were no associations between disclosure and any categories of IPV screening.
