Communication with deaf patients. Knowledge, beliefs, and practices of physicians
D. A. Ebert and P. S. Heckerling
Department of Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago 60612.
OBJECTIVE--To assess physicians' knowledge and beliefs regarding
communication with deaf people and compare their knowledge and beliefs with
their methods of communicating with deaf patients in their practices.
DESIGN--Survey. SETTING--University medical center. SUBJECTS--Attending
physicians in an internal medicine department. INTERVENTIONS--Physicians
were surveyed regarding prior contacts with deaf patients and with deaf
people outside the medical setting, and regarding their knowledge and
beliefs concerning methods of communicating with deaf people. Physicians
were asked to estimate the fraction of encounters in which they
communicated with deaf patients by lipreading, writing, translation by a
relative or friend, a sign language interpreter, or other methods.
RESULTS--Writing was the method used most frequently in communicating with
deaf patients. Although 63% of physicians knew that signing should be the
initial method of communicating with deaf patients who sign, only 22% used
sign language interpreters more frequently than other methods in their
practices. Past contact with deaf people (P = .05), belief that
communication by signing was the best means of communication (P = .04), and
knowledge of the inefficiency of lipreading (P = .04) were predictors of
the use of sign language interpreters for deaf patients. Physicians who
used sign language interpreters more frequently than other methods believed
that much more time and effort were involved in caring for deaf than for
hearing patients compared with those who used interpreters less frequently
(P = .08). CONCLUSION--Although most physicians believed that use of sign
language interpreters was preferable, only a minority used them in their
practices. Greater recognition of the advantages of signing over other
methods and greater availability of sign language interpreters should lead
to more effective communication between deaf patients and physicians.
Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Differences by Demographic Characteristics Among US Adults: Data From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004
Agrawal et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1522-1530.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Health profile of deaf Canadians: Analysis of the Canada Community Health Survey
Woodcock and Pole
cfp 2007;53:2140-2141.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Communicating about Health Care: Observations from Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Iezzoni et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:356-362.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Empowering the deaf. Let the deaf be deaf
Munoz-Baell and Ruiz
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000;54:40-44.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Prospective Study of the Cost-Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant
Palmer et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1221-1228.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of Bipolar Disorder in Inpatients With Prelingual Deafness
Shapira et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 1999;156:1267-1269.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Communication Disabilities among Medical Inpatients
Ebert and Heckerling
NEJM 1998;339:272-273.
FULL TEXT
Cultural and Linguistic Barriers to Mental Health Service Access: The Deaf Consumer's Perspective
Steinberg et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 1998;155:982-984.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Integrating Hearing Loss into One's Life
Herth
Qual Health Res 1998;8:207-223.
ABSTRACT
How To Do It: Work with an interpreter
Phelan and Parkman
BMJ 1995;311:555-557.
FULL TEXT
