(796) Understanding Parental Interpretation of Verbal Probability Terms in Pediatric Intensive Care

Introduction: Medical care teams use verbal probability terms (VPTs) to convey probabilistic estimates when precise numerical data is unavailable. In a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), the meaning of VPTs varies for speakers and listeners. The message received is not always the message sent because it depends on the individual internal conception of a numerical adscription to a term of verbal probability. The study aims to explore the numerical interpretation of VPTs across 3 groups: healthcare providers, English, and Spanish-speaking families of patients.

Methods: A cross-sectional study of 24 healthcare practitioners, 10 native English-speaking parents, and 10 native Spanish-speaking parents of PICU patients. Participants gave their numerical interpretation for 12 common VPTs (context-free). The range of numerical probability was determined for each term.

Results: The results of VPTs interpretations across the 3 groups showed a wide variation for the numerical adscription of probability for each term. The widest variation was for the term "Rarely": (Practitioner 5-95%, English 5-35%, Spanish 10-100%), "Frequently": Practitioner 55-95%, English 5-95%, Spanish 10-100%, "Unlikely": Practitioner 5-50%, English 5-85%, Spanish 5-50%, "Likely": Practitioner 50-95%, English 5-95%, Spanish 5-100%, "Possibly": Practitioner 25-65%, English 5-50%, Spanish 5-100%, "Commonly": Practitioner 50-95%, English 5-90%, Spanish 5-80%, "Almost Never": Practitioner 0-85%, English 0-85%, Spanish 0-100%, "Occasionally": Practitioner 10-75%, English 5-75%, Spanish 0-90%, "Significantly": Practitioner 45-95%, English 5-100%, Spanish 5-90%, "Small Chance": Practitioner 5-45%, English 5-95%, Spanish 0-100%, "Sometimes": Practitioner 15-65%, English 5-50%, Spanish 5-100%, "High Chance": Practitioner 60-100%, English 5-95%, Spanish 0-100%.

Conclusions: Native language showed a notable difference in the numerical adscription of probability for each term. The data supports that the spread in practitioner responses is less than that of patients' families, this is a wide difference in the understanding and assessment of risk by families and the medical team. In both languages, it is almost as if practitioners and families are speaking different languages. When available to providers, numerical data should be used instead of VPTs.