Objectives: To identify factors limiting the effectiveness of communication between Aboriginal patients with end‐stage renal disease and healthcare workers, and to identify strategies for improving communication. Design: Qualitative study, gathering data through (a) videotaped interactions between patients and staff, and (b) in‐depth interviews with all participants, in their first language, about their perceptions of the interaction, their interpretation of the video record and their broader experience with intercultural communication. Setting: A satellite dialysis unit in suburban Darwin, Northern Territory. The interactions occurred between March and July 2001. Participants: Aboriginal patients from the Yolngu language group of north‐east Arnhem Land and their medical, nursing and allied professional carers. Main outcome measures: Factors influencing the quality of communication. Results: A shared understanding of key concepts was rarely achieved. Miscommunication often went unrecognised. Sources of miscommunication included lack of patient control over the language, timing, content and circumstances of interactions; differing modes of discourse; dominance of biomedical knowledge and marginalisation of Yolngu knowledge; absence of opportunities and resources to construct a body of shared understanding; cultural and linguistic distance; lack of staff training in intercultural communication; and lack of involvement of trained interpreters. Conclusions: Miscommunication is pervasive. Trained interpreters provide only a partial solution. Fundamental change is required for Aboriginal patients to have significant input into the management of their illness. Educational resources are needed to facilitate a shared understanding, not only of renal physiology, disease and treatment, but also of the cultural, social and economic dimensions of the illness experience of Aboriginal people.

Background Pelvic discontinuity is an increasingly common complication of THA. Treatments of this complex situation are varied, including cup-cage constructs, acetabular allografts with plating, pelvic distraction technique, and custom triflange acetabular components. It is unclear whether any of these offer substantial advantages. Questions/purposes We therefore determined (1) revision and overall survival rates, (2) discontinuity healing rate, and (3) Harris hip score (HHS) after treatment of pelvic discontinuity with a custom triflange acetabular component and (4) the cost of this reconstructive operation compared to other constructs. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom triflange acetabular component. We reviewed operative reports, radiographs, and clinical data for clinical and radiographic results. We also performed a cost comparison with utilization of other techniques. Minimum followup was 24 months (average, 65 months; range, 24-215 months). Results Fifty-six of 57 (98%) were free of revision for aseptic loosening at latest followup. Fifty-four (95%) were free of revision of the triflange component for any reason. Thirty-seven (65%) were free of revision for any reason. Twenty-eight (49%) were free of revision for any reason and free of any component migration and had a healed discontinuity. Forty-six (81%) had a stable triflange component with a healed pelvic discontinuity. Average HHS was 74.8. The costs of the custom triflange implants and a Trabecular Metal 1 cup-cage construct were equivalent: $12,500 and $11,250, respectively.

No abstract

No abstract

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.