Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York (JMR, TH, JW, JS, JM, JC, CJ); School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York (SH, CP); Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York (TLP); Partners in Deaf Health Inc, Rochester, New York (JMR, SD-M, TLP).
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022 May-Jun;26(3):437-445. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2021.1936314. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
: We sought to identify current Emergency Medical Services (EMS) practitioner comfort levels and communication strategies when caring for the Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) user. Additionally, we created and evaluated the effect of an educational intervention and visual communication tool on EMS practitioner comfort levels and communication. : This was a descriptive study assessing communication barriers at baseline and after the implementation of a novel educational intervention with cross-sectional surveys conducted at three time points (pre-, immediate-post, and three months post-intervention). Descriptive statistics characterized the study sample and we quantified responses from the baseline survey and both post-intervention surveys. : There were 148 EMS practitioners who responded to the baseline survey. The majority of participants (74%; 109/148) previously responded to a 9-1-1 call for a Deaf patient and 24% (35/148) reported previous training regarding the Deaf community. The majority felt that important details were lost during communication (83%; 90/109), reported that the Deaf patient appeared frustrated during an encounter (72%; 78/109), and felt that communication limited patient care (67%; 73/109). When interacting with a Deaf person, the most common communication strategies included written text (90%; 98/109), friend/family member (90%; 98/109), lip reading (55%; 60/109), and spoken English (50%; 55/109). Immediately after the training, most participants reported that the educational training expanded their knowledge of Deaf culture (93%; 126/135), communication strategies to use (93%; 125/135), and common pitfalls to avoid (96%; 129/135) when caring for Deaf patients. At 3 months, all participants (100%, 79/79) reported that the educational module was helpful. Some participants (19%, 15/79) also reported using the communication tool with other non-English speaking patients. : The majority of EMS practitioners reported difficulty communicating with Deaf ASL users and acknowledged a sense of patient frustration. Nearly all participants felt the educational training was beneficial and clinically relevant; three months later, all participants found it to still be helpful. Additionally, the communication tool may be applicable to other populations that use English as a second language.
: 我们旨在确定当前急救医疗服务（EMS）从业者在照顾美国聋人手语（ASL）使用者时的舒适度和沟通策略。此外，我们创建并评估了一种教育干预措施和视觉沟通工具对 EMS 从业者舒适度和沟通的影响。: 这是一项描述性研究，在基线时评估沟通障碍，并在实施新的教育干预措施后进行横断面调查，在三个时间点（干预前、即时后和干预后三个月）进行调查。描述性统计数据描述了研究样本，我们量化了基线调查和两次干预后调查的反应。: 有 148 名 EMS 从业者对基线调查做出了回应。大多数参与者（74%；109/148）曾回应过聋人患者的 9-1-1 电话，24%（35/148）报告了有关聋人社区的先前培训。大多数人认为在沟通中重要的细节丢失了（83%；90/109），报告说聋人患者在遇到时感到沮丧（72%；78/109），并认为沟通限制了患者的护理（67%；73/109）。与聋人互动时，最常见的沟通策略包括书面文字（90%；98/109）、朋友/家人（90%；98/109）、唇读（55%；60/109）和英语口语（50%；55/109）。培训后立即，大多数参与者报告说，教育培训扩大了他们对聋人文化的了解（93%；126/135）、使用的沟通策略（93%；125/135）和避免的常见陷阱（96%；129/135）在照顾聋人患者时。3 个月后，所有参与者（100%，79/79）均表示教育模块有帮助。一些参与者（19%，15/79）还报告说，他们还与其他非英语患者使用了沟通工具。: 大多数 EMS 从业者报告与聋人 ASL 用户沟通困难，并承认患者感到沮丧。几乎所有参与者都认为教育培训有益且具有临床相关性；三个月后，所有参与者都认为它仍然有帮助。此外，该沟通工具可能适用于其他使用英语作为第二语言的人群。
