No Cover Image

Journal article 285 views 39 downloads

Communication about sexual orientation and gender between clinicians, LGBT+ people facing serious illness and their significant others: a qualitative interview study of experiences, preferences and recommendations

Debbie Braybrook Orcid Logo, Katherine Bristowe, Liadh Timmins Orcid Logo, Anna Roach, Elizabeth Day, Paul Clift, Ruth Rose, Steve Marshall, Katherine Johnson, Katherine E Sleeman, Richard Harding

BMJ Quality & Safety, Volume: 32, Issue: 2, Pages: 109 - 120

Swansea University Author: Liadh Timmins Orcid Logo

  • 64166.VOR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Published by BMJ. Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).

    Download (384.81KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-014792

Abstract

Background: Healthcare organisations have legal and ethical duties to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and related outcomes. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people continue to experience and anticipate discrimination in health and social care. Skilled c...

Full description

Published in: BMJ Quality & Safety
ISSN: 2044-5415 2044-5423
Published: BMJ 2023
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa64166
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract: Background: Healthcare organisations have legal and ethical duties to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and related outcomes. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people continue to experience and anticipate discrimination in health and social care. Skilled communication is vital for quality person-centred care, but there is inconsistent provision of evidence-based clinician education on health needs and experiences of LGBT+ people to support this. This study aimed to identify key stakeholders’ experiences, preferences and best practices for communication regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender history in order to reduce inequalities in healthcare. Methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews with LGBT+ patients with serious illness, significant others and clinicians, recruited via UK-wide LGBT+ groups, two hospitals and one hospice in England. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: 74 stakeholders participated: 34 LGBT+ patients with serious illness, 13 significant others and 27 multiprofessional clinicians. Participants described key communication strategies to promote inclusive practice across three domains: (1) ‘Creating positive first impressions and building rapport’ were central to relationship building and enacted through routine use of inclusive language, avoiding potentially negative non-verbal signals and echoing terminology used by patients and caregivers; (2) ‘Enhancing care by actively exploring and explaining the relevance of sexual orientation and gender identity’, participants described the benefits of clinicians initiating these discussions, pursuing topics guided by the patient’s response or expressed preferences for disclosure. Active involvement of significant others was encouraged to demonstrate recognition of the relationship; these individual level actions are underpinned by a foundation of (3) ‘visible and consistent LGBT+ inclusiveness in care systems’. Although participants expressed hesitance talking about LGBT+ identities with individuals from some sociocultural and religious backgrounds, there was widespread support for institutions to adopt a standardised, LGBT+ inclusive, visibly supportive approach. Conclusions: Person-centred care can be enhanced by incorporating discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity into routine clinical practice. Inclusive language and sensitive exploration of relationships and identities are core activities. Institutions need to support clinicians through provision of adequate training, resources, inclusive monitoring systems, policies and structures. Ten inclusive communication recommendations are made based on the data.
College: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Funders: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0816-20001), and supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Issue: 2
Start Page: 109
End Page: 120

Similar Items