Communication between Audiologist, Patient, and Patient’s Family Members during Initial Audiology Consultation and Rehabilitation Planning Sessions: A Descriptive Review

Abstract

Background:

Communication during clinical consultations is an important factor that facilitates decision-making by patients and family members. For clinicians, these interactions are opportunities to build rapport and to facilitate appropriate decision-making.

Purpose:

This article presents the literature review of studies focusing on communication between audiologist, patients, and their family members during initial audiology consultations and rehabilitation planning sessions.

Research Design:

A literature review was conducted.

Study Sample:

The review included eight empirical studies.

Data Collection and Analysis:

A systematic search of the CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, and PsychInfo databases was used to identify relevant articles for review. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rating of Qualitative Research (RQR) scale.

Results:

The average consultation length was 57.4 min (ranged 27.3–111 min), in which the mean length of case history discussion was 8.8 min (ranged 1.7–22.6 min) and the mean length of diagnosis and management planning was 29 min (ranged 2.2–78.5 min). Utterances spoken by audiologists were greater (about 51%) than patients (37%), whereas family members spoke the fewest utterances (12%) during interactions. Patients raised concerns (typically psychological in nature with negative emotional stance) about hearing aids in half of the appointments where hearing aids were recommended as the rehabilitation option. However, audiologists missed opportunities to build relationships as these concerns of patients were not typically addressed. Also, audiologists’ language was associated with hearing aid uptake (i.e., patients were less likely to uptake hearing aids when audiologists used complex language).

Conclusions:

The review highlights that audiologists dominate the conversation during audiology consultations and rehabilitation planning sessions. Audiologists did not take advantage of the opportunity to develop patient-centered communication and shared decision-making. Implications of these findings to both clinical practice and to audiology education and training are discussed.

Key Words

audiology - clinical consultation - clinician-client communication - communication - conversation analysis - interaction analysis - patient-centered care - psychosocial concerns - shared decision-making

• REFERENCES

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2006 Preferred practice patterns for the profession of audiology [scope of practice]. www.asha.org/policy . Accessed March 27, 2018.
• Brown J, Stewart M, Ryan B. 2001. Assessing Communication between Patients and Physicians: The Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC). London, United Kindom: Centre for Studies in Family Medicine;
• Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. 2012; Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence sythesis. Qual Health Res 22: 1435-1443
• Cherney LR, Simmons-Mackie N, Raymer A, Armstrong E, Holland A. 2013; Systematic review of communication partner training in aphasis: methodological quality. Int J Speech-Lang Pathol 15 (05) 535-545
• Claesen E, Pryce H. 2012; An exploration of the perspectives of help- seekers prescribed hearing aids. Prim Health Care Res Dev 13: 279-284
• Dockens A, Bellon-Harn ML, Burns ER, Manchaiah V, Hinojosa O. 2017; Examination of an audiologist’s response to patient’s expression of symptoms: a pilot study. J Audiol Otology 21 (02) 115-119
• Ekberg K, Barr C, Hickson L. 2015; Family member involvement in audiology appointments with older people with hearing impairment. Int J Audiol 54 (02) 70-76
• Ekberg K, Barr C, Hickson L. 2017; Difficult conversations: talking about cost in audiology consultations with older adults. Int J Audiol 56 (11) 854-861
• Ekberg K, Grenness C, Hickson L. 2014; a Addressing patients’ psychological concerns regarding hearing aids within audiology appointments for older adults. Am J Audiol 23 (03) 337-350
• Ekberg K, Meyer C, Scarinci N, Grenness C, Hickson L. 2014; b Disagreements between clients and family members regarding clients’ hearing and rehabilitation within audiology appointments for older adults. J Res Commun Disord 5 (02) 217-244
• Epley P, Summers JA, Turnbull A. 2010; Characteristics and trends in family-centred conceptualizations. J Fam Soc Work 13: 269-285
• Epstein RM, Street Jr RL. 2011; The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med 9: 100-103
• Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books;
• Grenness C, Hickson L, Laplante-Lévesque A, Meyer C, Davidson B. 2015; a Communication pattrens in audiologic rehabilitation history-taking: audiologists, patients, and their companions. Ear Hear 36 (02) 191-204
• Grenness C, Hickson L, Laplante-Lévesque A, Meyer C, Davidson B. 2015; b The nature of communication throughout diagnosis and management planning in initial audiologic rehabilitation consultations. J Am Acad Audiol 26: 36-50
• Kochkin S, Beck DL, Christenses LA, Compton-Conley C, Fligor BJ, Kricos PB, Turner RG. 2010; MarkeTrack VIII: the impact of hearing healthcare professional on hearing aiduser success. Hear Rev 17 (04) 12-34
• Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. 1997; Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. J Am Med Assoc 277 (07) 553-559
• Lown BA, Clark WD, Hanson JL. 2009; Mutual influence in shared decision making: a collaborative study of patients and physicians. Health Expect 12: 160-174
• Manchaiah VKC, Stephens D, Meredith R. 2011; The patient journey of adults with acquired hearing impairment: the patients’ view. Clin Otolaryngol 36: 227-234
• Manchaiah VKC, Stephens D, Zhao F, Kramer SE. 2012; The role of communication partners in the audiological enablement/rehabilitation of a person with hearing impairment: an overview. Audiol Med 10: 21-30
• Manchaiah V, Dockens AL, Bellon-Harn M, Burns E. 2016; Non-congruence between audiologists and patient’s preferences for patient-centeredness and its association with patient satisfaction. J Am Acad Audiol 28 (07) 636-643
• Manchaiah V, Hernandez BM, Beck DL. 2017; Applications of transtheoretical (stages of change model) in studying attitudes and behaviors of adults with hearing loss: a systematic review. J Am Acad Audiol 29: 548-560
• Martin FN, Barr MM, Bernstein M. 1992; Professional attitudes regarding counseling of hearing-impaired adults. Am J Otol 13: 279-297
• Mead N, Bower P. 2002; Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 48: 51-61
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. PRISMA-P Group 2015; Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4: 1
• Poost-Foroosh L, Jennings MB, Shaw L, Meston CN, Cheesman MF. 2011; Factors in client- clinician interaction that influence hearing aid adoption. Trends Amplification 15: 127-139
• Preminger J, Meeks S. 2010; The influence of mood on the perception of hearing-loss related quality of life in people with hearing loss and their significant others. Int J Audiol 49: 263-271
• Preminger J, Oxenböll M, Barnett MB, Jensen LD, Laplante-Levesque A. 2015; Perceptions of adults with hearing impairment regarding the promotion of trust in hearing healthcare service delivery. Int J Audiol 54: 20-28
• Ramachandran V, Stach BA. 2013. Professional Communication in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc;
• Roter D, Larson S. 2002; The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Educ Couns 46: 243-251
• Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin Jr. M, Stiles W, Inui TS. 1997; Communication patterns of primary care physicians. J Am Med Assoc 277: 350-356
• Schegloff EA. 1987; Analyzing single episodes of interaction: an exercise in conversation analysis. Soc Psychol Q 50: 101-114
• Sciacca A, Meyer C, Ekberg K, Barr C, Hickson L. 2017; Exploring audiologists’ language and hearing aid uptake in initial rehabilitation appointments. Am J Audiol 26: 110-118
• Seedhouse P. 2004; Conversation analysis methodology. Lang Learn 54 (S1) 1-54
• Simmons-Mackie N, Raymer A, Armstrong E, Holland A, Cherney LR. 2010; Communication partner training in aphasia. A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91 (02) 1814-1837
• Street Jr. RL, Gordon H, Haidet P. 2011; Physicians’ communication and perceptions of patients: is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?. Soc Sci Med 65: 586-598
• Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RL. 2009; How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 74: 295-301
• Stewart M. 1995; Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J 152: 1423-1433
• Tannen D. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In: Tannen D. Framing in Discourse. Oxford, United Kindom: Oxford University Press; pp 14-56
• Zhao F, Manchaiah V, St Claire L, Danermark B, Jones L, Brandreth M, Rajalakshmi K, Goodwin R. 2015; Exploring the influence of culture on hearing help-seeking and hearing-aid uptake. Int J Audiol 54: 435-443