Meeting Patient Communication Needs

With Evidence-Based Practice

Its Time To Improve

Patient Communication Standards!
Unless we make substantial changes in the
organization and delivery of healthcare, all patients
- particularly the most vulnerable - will continue to
bear the burden of medical error.
Weingart SN, et al. Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ.
2000;320:774-777.

Objectives
I. Define the problem
A. Communication Vulnerable Populations
B. Highlight Complications Associated with Poor Communication
C. The Joint Commission Standards of Care

II. Providing an Evidence-based Solution

A. Standardizes a Point-of-Care Approach to Impaired Communication
B. Promotes Best Practice
C. Improves Patient Outcomes

III. Recommendations for Utilization

IV. References (slides 33-42)

Introduction
Patient communication is compromised due to:
nonverbal (surgery, trauma or stroke) & linguistic barriers
Ignoring the communication barrier causes:
misunderstanding and frustration
negative emotions of futility and dehumanization
Traditional nonverbal communication methods
require energy, are fatiguing and emotionally draining for patients
no standardization, greater chance for error
Solution: Evidence-based Patient Communication Board
patients can easily point to words, phrases, & pictures
designed in clinical research study to improve patient outcomes

The Problem
Patients who are unable to establish or maintain effective
communication with their providers are at greater risk of
medical error and poorer outcomes.
A patients right to effective patient-provider communication
is supported by accreditation standards, regulatory
guidelines, and patient rights declarations. Patients have the
right to be informed about the care they receive, make
educated decisions about the care, and have the right to be
listened to by their providers.

More about the Problem

Patient outcomes are substantially dependent on their
ability to participate in their care.
Patients who are communication-vulnerable
[unable to establish or maintain effective
communication with assistance or independently]
are consequently subjected to
unsafe practice
poorer education
poorer outcomes

More about the Problem

Weaknesses within the healthcare system which perpetuate this
alarming and urgent matter include
Inadequate health care standards and regulations
Lack of health care professional education
75% nurses feel their bedside methods are inadequate!!*
* Charles Reed study (slide 25-26)

Lack of value or recognition by organizations

Lack of health care professional collaboration
Multidisciplinary care teams that include experts trained to
mobilize effective communication resources and achieve
desired outcomes.

Factors associated with preventable adverse events

Bartlett, G. et al. CMAJ 2008;178:1555-1562

Who Is Most Vulnerable To Communication

Impairment?

Mechanically-Ventilated Patients
Trached Patients
Head & Neck Surgery Patients
Stroke Patients
Extremely Weak Patients (Hospice & Elderly)
Non-English Speaking Patients
Non-Verbal Patients

Clinically Significant Outcomes Related

to Ineffective Patient Communication

Twice more likely to experience medical physical harm

Increased risk of nonadherence to medication
Misreported abuse
Decreased access to medical care
Decreased use of medical care
Increased diagnosis of psychopathology
More likely to leave hospital against medical advice
Asthmatics more likely to receive intubation
Less likely to return for follow up appointments after
Emergency Room visits

Clinically Significant Outcomes Related

to Ineffective Patient Communication
(cont)
Higher rates of hospitalization

Higher rates of drug complications

Highest use of resources to provide care
Lowest levels of satisfaction with care
Increased risk of delayed care
Increased failure to treat and prevent devastating disease
states and death
Increased risk of malpractice
Increased length of hospital stay
Alterations in communication including interference with transfer
of information, reduced emotional support, and reduced rapport

Patient Quote
UCLA Study Patient Quote
I kept trying to tell them I had pain in the back and uh they
didn't understand what I was saying. Finally I just came to
the point where I stopped.

Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, Doering L, Berg J. (2006). Communication boards in critical care: A patient's view. Applied Nursing
Research,19(4),182-90.

Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, Doering L, Berg J. (2004). Patient's reports of health care practitioner interventions related to communication
during mechanical ventilation. Heart & Lung The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 33(5), 308-320.

The Joint Commission Standards

Standard of Care RI.2.100 states "The organization
respects the patient's right to and need for
communication."
Elements of Performance for RI.2.100, No.4 stating, "The
organization addresses the needs of those with vision,
speech, hearing, language, and cognitive impairments."
Hosted a Webinar, Call to Action: Patient/Provider
Communication, on February 17, 2009 addressing the
nation on improving standards of care

Vidatak EZ Boards
The only evidence-based, patient designed
communication boards available today
Shown to reduce patient frustration
Shown to improve patient satisfaction
Available in 16 translations with English subtext
Available also as a picture board with researchbased picture drawings

Vidatak EZ Board

Vidatak EZ Boards
Endorsed by the Hospice and Palliative Nurses
Association (HPNA)
Distributed by the American Association of CriticalCare Nurses (AACN)
Used in 6 different countries
Distributed to over 1,500 hospitals in the US

Vidatak EZ Board

Vidatak EZ Boards & Research

UCLA Study Qualitative & Quantitative, 29 subjects

86% reported board would have been helpful

62% reported high levels of frustration
14% reported no frustration
79% received anxiolytics
Patients who received anxiolytics = reported levels of
frustration
Patients were able to articulate their preferences in designing
the Vidatak EZ Board

UCLA Study Reported level of frustration

Patients who had received traditional methods for
communicating while ventilated reported their frustration
would have significantly decreased if they had used the
Vidatak EZ Board (p<.001) with nearly half (41%)
reporting they would have experienced no frustration
with the Vidatak EZ Board.

UCLA Study Reported level of frustration without

the Vidatak EZ Board (70% reported high levels of frustration)

UCLA Study Comparing w/ and w/o board

(70% with the Vidatak EZ Board reported low levels of frustration)

UCLA Study Facilitating Communication

Health care practitioner behaviors identified

as facilitating communication

Being kind and patient

Offering verbal reassurance and important information
Being present and available at the bedside
Letting patients write
Understanding what patients need

UCLA Study Impeding Communication

Health care practitioner behaviors identified

as impeding communication

Being mechanical, non-personal

Inconsistent
Inattentive and not present
Not being given the opportunity to perform as an individual
Imposing an agenda instead of learning about what the
patient wants to do, when they want to do it
Not letting patients write or throwing away written notes

UCLA Study Patient proposes its a

systematic problem
UCLA Study Patient Quote
It would create an interface between the patient & the staff that would formalize
the requirement that they pay attention to what the patient is trying to say. It
would be like a passport. The person, even if they didn't use it, could wave it,
say 'I matter. I can be heard. I have a stake in this. It's not just about you acting
on me. It's about my being able to tell you what I want, what I'm doing'. I
believe the concept itself is very strong, because it would both obligate the staff
to stop & listen with a fresh ear, instead of saying, 'Oh well, they're intubed.
They can't talk. Let's just write them off. It could inspire, to instill hope &
empower those who are not as strong willed as I am.

Vidatak EZ Boards Used in Research

Charles Reed, University of Texas Health Sciences Center
Surveyed and interviewed both nurses and patients
regarding methods used to communicate
75% nurses felt methods were inadequate!!
30% nurses felt they effectively understood their patient
59% patients reported being extremely frustrated with the
inability to communicate

Vidatak EZ Boards Used in Research

Charles Reed, University of Texas Health Sciences Center
Most beneficial methods reported by patients (in order)
Writing/Vidatak EZ Board (51%)
Hand gestures (28%)
Electronic communication board (14%)
Most beneficial methods reported by nurses (in order)

Vidatak EZ Board (58%)

Electronic communication board (21%)
Most common method reported by patients
Hand gestures (44%)

Vidatak EZ Boards Used in Research

(International Study)

Lydia David, Apollo College of Nursing, Chennai, India

Experimental control trial of 60 patients - randomized w/or
w/o communication board (30 each).
Without the Vidatak EZ Board, 73% reported their communication
process was inadequate; with the board, 80% reported it was adequate.
Without the Vidatak EZ Board, 63% reported being unsatisfied with their
communication process; with the board, 77% were satisfied.
Of those who used the Vidatak EZ Board 80% were satisfied with the
board, 20% moderately satisfied. Nurses, however, reported 53%
satisfied, 30% moderately satisfied and 17% unsatisfied.
Overall, the patients with the Vidatak EZ Board reported higher
satisfaction with communication (p<.001) and this was correlated to their
satisfaction with the Vidatak EZ Board (p<.01).

Vidatak EZ Boards Used in Research

John Costello, MA, CCC-SLP, Children's Hospital
Boston
Conducted clinical research over three years collecting
data on appropriate concepts to be depicted on a Picture
Board as well as designing the best representations of
these concepts with children ages 4-19.
Working together, we combined our clinical research data
and developed the Vidatak EZ Picture Boards.

Vidatak EZ Board - Ongoing Studies

Dr. Mary Beth Happ, University of Pittsburgh
SPEACS study 5 year longitudinal study comparing
routine care to non-tech and technological communication
devices as well as measuring outcome variables

Dr. Ruth Kleinpell, Rush University

Experimental study examining the impact of the Vidatak
EZ Board on specific variables

Goals for Implementing Vidatak EZ Boards

Hospital Wide
When used with proactive nursing care that prioritizes the
patients ability to actively participate and communicate
effectively, the EZ Board can provide outstanding results which
may include:
1. Decreased level of frustration
2. Improved pain management
3. Reduced sedation requirements
4. Improved staffing efficacy (1:1 ICU nurse/patient ratio 1:2)
5. Increased patient participation and satisfaction with healthcare
6. Expedited extubation and decreased length of ICU and hospital stay

The Vidatak EZ Board should be supplied to

patients in the following areas:
Preoperative Rooms

(preoperative teaching and for Time-Out Assessment prior to surgery

with intubated patients)

Recovery Rooms/Postoperative Care

Intensive Care Units (CCU, MICU, SICU)
Step Down Units
Long Term Care Facilities
Head and Neck Surgery
Outpatient Surgery
Rehabilitation Units
Speech-Language Pathology Departments

FOR OPTIMAL USE, PLEASE:

1) Orient your patient to the content on this board.
2) Add names of family members or other custom vocabulary as
needed.
3) Provide this board as part of preoperative teaching as it will
improve patients ability to navigate the board and use it more
effectively. By familiarizing themselves with the board and
individualizing the board, patients will have better use, improved
satisfaction, reduced anxiety and reduced anxiolytic medication
requirements, etc.
4) KEEP THIS BOARD WITH THE PATIENT AT ALL TIMES! We
provide bedside rail holder for this exact purpose.
5) For infection control, PLEASE DO NOT RE-USE THIS PRODUCT
BETWEEN PATIENTS.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Albarran, A. W. (1991). A review of communication with intubated patients and

those with tracheostomies within an intensive care environment. Intensive Care
Nursing, 7(3), 179-186.
American Hospital Association. The patient care partnership: Understanding
expectations, rights, and responsibilities. Retrieved 01/2009
http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2003/pdf/pcp_english_030730.pdf
Ashworth, P. (1980). Care to communicate. (RCN Research Series ed.).
London: Whitefriars Press.
Baker, G. R., Norton, P. G., Flintoft, V., Blais, R., Brown, A., Cox, J., et al.
(2004). The canadian adverse events study: The incidence of adverse events
among hospital patients in canada. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association
Journal = Journal De l'Association Medicale Canadienne, 170(11), 1678-1686.
Barrere, C. C. (2007). Discourse analysis of nurse-patient communication in a
hospital setting: Implications for staff development. Journal for Nurses in Staff
Development : JNSD : Official Journal of the National Nursing Staff
Development Organization, 23(3), 114-22; quiz 123-4.

References
Bartlett, G., Blais, R., Tamblyn, R., Clermont, R. J., & MacGibbon, B. (2008). Impact of
patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute
care settings. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De
l'Association Medicale Canadienne, 178(12), 1555-1562.
7. Bergbom-Engberg, I., & Haljamae, H. (1988). A retrospective study of patients' recall
of respirator treatment (2): Nursing care factors and feelings of security/insecurity.
Intensive Care Nursing, 4(3), 95-101.
8. Bergbom-Engberg, I., & Haljamae, H. (1989). Assessment of patients' experience of
discomforts during respirator therapy. Critical Care Medicine, 17(10), 1068-1072.
9. Bergbom-Engberg, I., & Haljamae, H. (1993). The communication process with
ventilator patients in the ICU as perceived by the nursing staff. Intensive & Critical
Care Nursing : The Official Journal of the British Association of Critical Care Nurses,
9(1), 40-47.
10. Bergbom-Engberg, I., Hallenberg, B., Wickstrom, I., & Haljamae, H. (1988). A
retrospective study of patients' recall of respirator treatment. (1): Study design and
basic findings. Intensive Care Nursing, 4(2), 56-61.
6.

References
11. Beukelman, D. R., Garrett, K. L., & Yorkston, K. M. (2007). Augmentive
communication strategies for adults with acute chronic medical conditions.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.
12. Carroll, S. M. (2004). Nonvocal ventilated patients perceptions of being
understood. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26(1), 85-103; discussion
104-12.
13. Carroll, S. M. (2007). Silent, slow lifeworld: The communication experience of
nonvocal ventilated patients. Qualitative Health Research, 17(9), 1165-1177.
14. Casbolt, S. (2002). Communicating with the ventilated patient--a literature review.
Nursing in Critical Care, 7(4), 198-202.
15. Chang, V. T., Hwang, S. S., Feuerman, M., Kasimis, B. S., & Thaler, H. T. (2000).
The memorial symptom assessment scale short form (MSAS-SF). Cancer, 89(5),
1162-1171.
16. Christensen, M., & Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2007). Patient empowerment: Does it still
occur in the ICU? Intensive & Critical Care Nursing : The Official Journal of the
British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 23(3), 156-161.

References
17. Clark, N. M., Cabana, M. D., Nan, B., Gong, Z. M., Slish, K. K., Birk, N. A., et al.
(2008). The clinician-patient partnership paradigm: Outcomes associated with
physician communication behavior. Clinical Pediatrics, 47(1), 49-57.
18. Connolly, M. A., & Shekleton, M. E. (1991). Communicating with ventilator
dependent patients. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing : DCCN, 10(2), 115122.
19. Costello, J. (2000). AAC intervention in the intensive care unit: The children's
hospital boston model. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(3),
137.
20. Divi, C., Koss, R. G., Schmaltz, S. P., & Loeb, J. M. (2007). Language proficiency
and adverse events in US hospitals: A pilot study. International Journal for
Quality in Health Care : Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health
Care / ISQua, 19(2), 60-67.
21. Ebert, D. A., & Heckerling, P. S. (1998). Communication disabilities among
medical inpatients. The New England Journal of Medicine, 339(4), 272-273.

References
22. Finke, E. H., Light, J., & Kitko, L. (2008). A systematic review of the effectiveness of
nurse communication with patients with complex communication needs with a focus
on the use of augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 17(16), 2102-2115.
23. Forbes, M. O. (2007). Prolonged ventilator dependence: Perspective of the chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease patient. Clinical Nursing Research, 16(3), 231-250.
24. Fried-Oken, M. (2001). Been there done that: A very personal introduction to the
special issue on augmentative and alternative communication and acquired disorders.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 138-140.
25. Garrett, P. W., Dickson, H. G., & Whelan, A. K. (2008). Communication and healthcare
complexity in people with little or no english: The communication complexity score.
Ethnicity & Health, 13(3), 203-217.
26. Granberg, A., Bergbom Engberg, I., & Lundberg, D. (1998). Patients' experience of
being critically ill or severely injured and cared for in an intensive care unit in relation
to the ICU syndrome. part I. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing : The Official Journal of
the British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 14(6), 294-307.

References
27. Hallenberg, B., Bergbom-Engberg, I., & Haljamae, H. (1990). Patients' experiences
of postoperative respirator treatment--influence of anaesthetic and pain treatment
regimens. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 34(7), 557-562.
28. Happ, M. B. (2001). Communicating with mechanically ventilated patients: State of
the science. AACN Clinical Issues, 12(2), 247-258.
29. Happ, M. B., & Paull, B. (2008). Silence is not golden. Geriatric Nursing (New York,
N.Y.), 29(3), 166-168.
30. Happ, M. B., Roesch, T. K., & Garrett, K. (2004). Electronic voice-output
communication aids for temporarily nonspeaking patients in a medical intensive care
unit: A feasibility study. Heart & Lung : The Journal of Critical Care, 33(2), 92-101.
31. Happ, M. B., Sereika, S., Garrett, K., & Tate, J. (2008). Use of the quasi-experimental
sequential cohort design in the study of patient-nurse effectiveness with assisted
communication strategies (SPEACS). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(5), 801-808.
32. Kelleher, S. (2006). Providing patient-centred care in an intensive care unit. Nursing
Standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987), 21(13), 35-40.

References
33. Leathart, A. J. (1994). Communication and socialisation (1): An exploratory study
and explanation for nurse-patient communication in an ITU. Intensive & Critical
Care Nursing : The Official Journal of the British Association of Critical Care
Nurses, 10(2), 93-104.
34. Leathart, A. J. (1994b). Communication and socialisation (2): Perceptions of
neophyte ITU nurses. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing : The Official Journal of
the British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 10(2), 142-154.
35. Magnus, V. S., & Turkington, L. (2006). Communication interaction in ICU--patient
and staff experiences and perceptions. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing : The
Official Journal of the British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 22(3), 167-180.
36. McCabe, C. (2004). Nurse-patient communication: An exploration of patients'
experiences. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(1), 41-49.
37. Menzel, L. K. (1998). Factors related to the emotional responses of intubated
patients to being unable to speak. Heart & Lung : The Journal of Critical Care,
27(4), 245-252.

References
38. O'Halloran, R., Hickson, L., & Worrall, L. (2008). Environmental factors that influence
communication between people with communication disability and their healthcare
providers in hospital: A review of the literature within the international classification of
functioning, disability and health (ICF) framework. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders / Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, 43(6), 601632.
39. Patak, L., Gawlinski, A., Fung, N. I., Doering, L., & Berg, J. (2004). Patients' reports of
health care practitioner interventions that are related to communication during mechanical
ventilation. Heart & Lung : The Journal of Critical Care, 33(5), 308-320.
40. Patak, L., Gawlinski, A., Fung, N. I., Doering, L., Berg, J., & Henneman, E. A. (2006).
Communication boards in critical care: Patients' views. Applied Nursing Research : ANR,
19(4), 182-190.
41. Pennock, B. E., Crawshaw, L., Maher, T., Price, T., & Kaplan, P. D. (1994). Distressful
events in the ICU as perceived by patients recovering from coronary artery bypass
surgery. Heart & Lung : The Journal of Critical Care, 23(4), 323-327.

References
42. Pham, K., Thornton, J. D., Engelberg, R. A., Jackson, J. C., & Curtis, J. R. (2008).
Alterations during medical interpretation of ICU family conferences that interfere with or
enhance communication. Chest, 134(1), 109-116.
43. Rotondi, A. J., Chelluri, L., Sirio, C., Mendelsohn, A., Schulz, R., Belle, S., et al. (2002).
Patients' recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical
ventilation in an intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine, 30(4), 746-752.
44. Salyer, J., & Stuart, B. J. (1985). Nurse-patient interaction in the intensive care unit.
Heart & Lung : The Journal of Critical Care, 14(1), 20-24.
45. Schou, L., & Egerod, I. (2008). A qualitative study into the lived experience of postCABG patients during mechanical ventilator weaning. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing
: The Official Journal of the British Association of Critical Care Nurses, 24(3), 171-179.
46. Smith, S., Hanson, J. L., Tewksbury, L. R., Christy, C., Talib, N. J., Harris, M. A., et al.
(2007). Teaching patient communication skills to medical students: A review of
randomized controlled trials. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 30(1), 3-21.

References
47. Weingart, S. N., Pagovich, O., Sands, D. Z., Li, J. M., Aronson, M. D., Davis, R.
B., et al. (2005). What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events?
learning from patient-reported incidents. Journal of General Internal Medicine :
Official Journal of the Society for Research and Education in Primary Care
Internal Medicine, 20(9), 830-836.
48. Williams, M. L. (1992). An algorithm for selecting a communication technique
with intubated patients. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing : DCCN, 11(4), 222233.