(Smith, 2003) Checking twice, or more than twice may be less important than securing a diversity of views in such an arena. (Smith, 2003)
The ability adequately communicate risk levels amongst providers can become difficult. Also, hasty words can create a misperception in the minds of patients, if a doctor speaks too casually. "Science cannot prove a negative, but, where their children are concerned, parents want to be assured that risk is zero," and it is tempting for doctors to ignore communicating data, for fear of communication the issue. Some suggest, regarding all procedures, establishing a comprehensive 'Richter scale' of risks to communicate data to remove the potential for misunderstanding -- for example, identifying the riskiest scenarios, and flagging them for hospital staff, or using the 'pain scale' amongst all hospital staff and on paperwork of 1-10 to communicate how much pain a patient is in, on a feeling level, as well as the state of health according to traditional medical data. When informing different individuals of the emotional or 'felt' risks of performing or not performing a procedure, to quantify them as such data, even if feelings are subjective, can be helpful for all. (Bellaby, 2003)
Lastly, it must be stressed that the stated goals at UCLA of patient safety and satisfaction may not be always complementary, as frequently perceptions of risk can be at odds with their likely occurrence. Patients may eschew vaccinations for their own children, obsessed with the relatively insignificant risk of autism caused by MMR vaccine despite the fact that the risk was posed by the vaccine relative to, for example, allowing their child to ride the...
(Bellaby, 2003) Although health care general about what will transpire over the course of their hospital stay, communication is key so the patients may give informed consent, as well as merely sigh a consent form. Patients may need to write down and check off that they understand the potential physical discomfort, as well as the fact they do not hold the hospital liable for certain side effects. The correct and most ethical way to communicate risk thus is still evolving in the next century of health care, but must treat communication as more than a box that can bet checked yes or no, twice or once.
Works Cited
Bellaby, Paul. (27 Sept 2003) "Communication and Miscommunication." British Medical Journal. 327:725-728. Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7417/725
New York Presbyterian. (2005) "Mission Statement." Official Website Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://www.nyp.org/about/mission.html?name1=Leading+the+Way&type1=2Select&name2=Mission&type2=3Active
Risk Management Worksheet." (2005) Official Website Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://www.med.cornell.edu/research/pdf/contracts/mtarform-in.pdf
Robert Wood Johnson. (2005) "Patient Safety." Official Website Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://www.rwjuh.edu/medserv/patientsafety.html
Smith, R. (27 Sept 2003) "Communicating Risk" British Medical Journal. Volume 327: 329. Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7417/0-f
UCLA. (2005) Official Website. Retrieved on 22 Aug 2005 at http://risk.mednet.ucla.edu
