Emergency Medical Services Communication Barriers and the Deaf American Sign Language User
Jason M. Rotoli,Sarah Hancock,Chanjun Park,Susan Demers-Mcletchie,Tiffany L. Panko,Trevor Halle,Jennifer Wills,Julie Scarpino,Johannah Merrill,Jeremy Cushman,Courtney Jones
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2021.1936314
2021-06-21
Prehospital Emergency Care
Abstract:Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
public, environmental & occupational health,emergency medicine