Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFrom the President1 Nov 2011Our Role in Effective Patient-Provider Communication Paul R. RaoPhD, CCC-SLP Paul R. Rao Google Scholar More articles by this author , PhD, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTP.16132011.17 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/111101/From-the-President--Our-Role-in-Effective-Patient-Provider-Communication.htm Effective communication between patients and providers is increasingly recognized as an important risk-management issue, cost-containment factor, and essential component of quality health care and patient safety. Change to our health care system is a constant, and ASHA is working hard to keep abreast of both the challenges and opportunities for our discipline. We all can appreciate the importance of health care advocacy, evidence-based practice, and ethics. This focus has recently led me to contemplate the role of speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and ASHA in promoting, implementing, and measuring the impact of effective patient-provider communication. No matter what your clinical setting, this message is for you. We are all health care consumers from time to time, and so are our clients. ASHA’s vision and mission statements mandate that we support the rights of all people to communicate. Therefore, when there is a widespread problem with communication, we ought to be talking about it and trying to lend a hand. I am advocating for action. Based on data from NIH and MarkeTrak VII, estimates of “communication-vulnerable individuals” in health care settings in the United States include 22 to 31 million people with hearing impairments and 46 million with “disordered communication,” as well as roughly 90 million people with limited health literacy, 40 million with limited English proficiency, and an unspecified number with cultural, sexual, and religious differences. That figure is more than two-thirds of the entire population. Importantly, research has demonstrated that effective communication between patients and providers increases the likelihood of (1) positive patient outcomes, (2) accurate diagnoses and timely treatments, (3) patients and family members understanding and adhering to recommended treatment regimens, (4) greatly improved patient safety, and (5) patient and family satisfaction with the care they receive (e.g., Ong, de Haes, Hoos, & Lammes, 1995; Rao, Anderson, Inui, & Frankel, 2007; Stewart, 1995). On the other hand, communication breakdowns among patients, their family members, and health care staff contribute to such serious problems as medical errors, inadequate pain relief, extended hospital stays, increased costs, and patient anguish and disorientation. Effective communication between patients and providers, therefore, is increasingly recognized as important. Some of our colleagues who provide augmentative communication services are already demonstrating the value of their services to a broad spectrum of patients in intensive care units and emergency rooms, and at bedsides. The need for improved communication between patients and providers creates a window of opportunity for ASHA and its members. As new federal laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards mandate improved patient-provider communication, the time is now to step up and advocate for our role. As communication experts, we bring skills in assessing, diagnosing, and treating communication disorders and in helping people communicate more effectively. In addition, we promote augmentative communication strategies and the elimination of societal, cultural, and linguistic barriers. We need to work collaboratively with our colleagues in interpreter services, nursing, medicine, allied health, dietary, emergency medicine, pharmacy, compliance, administration, and pastoral care. We have to demonstrate the value of our treatment procedures with outcome data as we hold paramount the welfare of our clients. I recommend Becky Sutherland Cornett’s article on health care reform and speech-pathology practice ( The ASHA Leader, Aug. 3, 2010). We also need to promote public understanding of the professions by supporting the development of services designed to fulfill the unmet needs of the public (Code of Ethics, Principles 1 and 3). ASHA works diligently through our Health Care Economics Committee to ensure that speech-language pathology and audiology services are appropriately valued and that procedure codes cover the services we provide. It is up to us to collect data to obtain reasonable reimbursement values from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. History strongly suggests that if we do the right thing, the money will eventually follow. We bring well-established, evidence-based practices, an understanding of communication processes, and a long history of working with other disciplines to any table. I have little doubt the reimbursement codes will follow, because the Health Care Economics Committee can advocate for new codes. Moreover, patients need to access communication supports 24/7. Effective patient-provider communication is a health care advocacy issue. Let’s apply our unique training and expertise to solving a national problem. ASHA’s Vision and Mission Statements ASHA vision statement: Making effective communication, a human right, accessible and achievable for all. ASHA mission statement: Empowering and supporting speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and speech, language, and hearing scientists by: Advocating on behalf of people with communication and related disorders. Advancing communication science. Promoting effective human communication. Clear Patient Communication Anyone entering the health care system should have services and tools available to allow them to communicate with health care professionals. People also have a right to receive information about their health and health care that is understandable, meaningful, and actionable. ASHA has resources available to help clinicians communicate more effectively with patients and families: Patient-Provider Communication Health Literacy Cultural Competence References Ong L. M., de Haes J. C., Hoos A. M., & Lammes F. B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature.Social Science and Medicine, 40, 903–918. Google Scholar Rao J. K., Anderson L. A., Inui T. S., Frankel R. M. (2007). Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: A systematic review of the evidence.Medical Care, 45(4), 340–349. Google Scholar Stewart M. A. (1995). Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review.Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, 152, 1423–1433. Google Scholar Author Notes PhD, CCC-SLP Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 16Issue 13November 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Nov 1, 2011 Metrics Downloaded 640 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle