European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 149, Issue 2 , Pages 136-142, April 2010

Clinical relationship and psychological experience of hospitalization in “high-risk” pregnancy

  • Melissa L. Pozzo

      Affiliations

    • Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico, Mangiagalli e Regina Elena, Milan, Italy
    • Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, University of Milan, Via G. B. Grassi, 74, 20151 Milan, Italy
    • Psychologist, psychotherapist receiver of a scholarship from Fondazione Policlinico, Mangiagalli e Regina Elena.
  • ,
  • Valentina Brusati

      Affiliations

    • Doctorate in Sciences of Prenatal Development, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
    • MD- Specialist in Maternal-Fetal medicine.
  • ,
  • Irene Cetin

      Affiliations

    • Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, University of Milan, Via G. B. Grassi, 74, 20151 Milan, Italy
    • MD- Specialist in Maternal-Fetal medicine.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 50319804; fax: +39 02 50319806.

Received 15 July 2009; received in revised form 9 November 2009; accepted 11 December 2009. published online 28 December 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

To explore, in a systemic view, the reciprocal perceived relationship between hospitalized “high-risk” pregnant women with uncertain fetal prognosis and the multidisciplinary prenatal care team, by the use of specifically developed questionnaires.

Study design

A pilot study in a high-risk pregnancy department. We enrolled 52 pregnant hospitalized women and 17 clinical operators and we interviewed them by the use of open-ended and close-ended question questionnaires.

Results

We described patients’ perception of doctors and staff communication, patients’ feelings and emotions relating to “high-risk” pregnancy and hospitalization, operators’ emotions, perceived facilitating factors, difficulties and resources. In a “high-risk” pregnancy condition, some difficulties in the relationship between hospitalized women and health operators occur. For inpatients the emotional difficulties were mostly connected to the pathologic situation and the contingent loneliness. Although the majority of women said that they understood staff communication and that they established a basic trust towards the entire clinical staff, there was a request for greater outspokenness. For clinical operators the relational and communication difficulties specifically concerned the overall management of the relationship with the patients studied. In particular, they perceived themselves to be called to a greater clearness and clinical reliability.

Conclusions

Overcoming the dyadic model of the doctor–patient relationship (in a systemic view) by incorporating clinical operators’ and inpatients’ points of view, seems a useful tool to highlight critical and facilitating factors about the relationship and communication in “high-risk” conditions.

Condensation Overcoming the dyadic vision of the doctor–patient relationship, by crossing clinical operator's and inpatient's points of view, seems a useful tool to highlight critical and facilitating factors about the relationship and communication in “high-risk” pregnancy conditions.

Keywords: Clinical communication, “High-risk” pregnancy, Systemic view

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0301-2115(09)00731-3

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.12.009

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 149, Issue 2 , Pages 136-142, April 2010