Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33415297›Full record

ArticleSAGE open nursing

Avoiding Difficult Conversations in the Australian Health Sector.

Christine King, Tanya Edlington, Brett Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christine KingDepartment of Paramedicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Tanya EdlingtonThe Conversation Clinic Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Brett WilliamsDepartment of Paramedicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-1779

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth professionals avoiding difficult conversations with each other can lead to serious negative consequences for patients. Clinical supervisors are in the unique position of interacting both with students as well as colleagues and peers. This study explores the avoidance of difficult conversations from the perspective of clinical supervisors in order to better understand why health professionals avoid difficult conversations.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify the reasons why difficult conversations are avoided between health-care professionals and to gain deeper insight into the phenomenon of avoiding difficult conversations in general.

methodsConvergent interviewing was used with 20 clinical supervisors to explore the following question:

resultsMajor reasons for avoiding difficult conversations included the fear of negative consequences, a general distaste for confrontation, and a lack of confidence in their skills to have such conversations. Additional factors included individual qualities such as personality type and communication style, available time, size of the workplace, and a range of perceived cultural barriers standing in the way of having difficult conversations.

conclusionThere is a need to encourage clinical supervisors and other health professionals to embrace difficult conversations to reduce adverse events and enhance patient outcomes. This requires additional training and educational opportunities to enhance knowledge, skills, and confidence to plan and engage in difficult conversations. Some types of difficult conversations require more skills than others.

Indexed as

allied health personnelavoiding difficult conversationsclinical placementclinical supervisioncrucial conversationshealth educatorsmedical errorsnursing

Identifiers

PMID33415297
PMCPMC7774411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.