Prosthetic and orthotic resources for communicating

Edward D. Lemaire, PhD; M. Jason Highsmith, DPT, CP; Wieland Kaphingst, Dipl -Ing Communication is an essential component for high-quality healthcare interactions. While the benefits of patient-practitioner communication have been well documented [1–2], the importance of interpractitioner and clinicianresearcher communication must also be considered. The field of prosthetics and orthotics is an excellent example of interdisciplinary care, with wide participation from within and outside the typical healthcare environment. This mix of consumers, physicians, nurses, therapists, prosthetists, orthotists, engineers, psychologists, business/industrial sector representatives, and other stakeholders brings together a breadth of terminology that can lead to communication errors and reduced decision-making effectiveness. The impact of varying terminology in the assistive device sector is enhanced when moving into the global arena. Assistive device terminology is a dynamic and constantly evolving area. Innovation brings new ideas and produces new terms to describe these advances efficiently. Regionalization is to be expected with these terms and definitions. While attempts have been made to standardize language, dating from the first dictionaries to the Académie française (i.e., the official authority established in 1635 to standardize the French language) to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee on Prosthetics and Orthotics Nomenclature and Terminology (TC 168), society’s evolving communication needs make standardization a difficult and continuous task. A combination of standardization and description is needed to build on a common communication base and encourage an understanding of regionalized terminology. Describing prostheses, orthoses, patient care, research findings, and other vital forms of information exchange presents ongoing challenges for all involved. Some problems exist by selection, implementation, and continued use of terms that are inadequately, nonobviously, or entirely nondescript. For example, confusion is needlessly inserted into a dialogue when an assistive device or clinical procedure is described by where it was invented or the inventor’s name. This is eponym terminology. More anatomically correct language could be used for description to eliminate confusion. Consider the difference when requesting a Miami collar versus a rigid cervical orthosis with molded chin and occipital support or describing a Syme’s amputation as opposed to an ankle disarticulation amputation. Other sources of language confusion come from— 1. Acronyms: Acronyms can create confusion within an interdisciplinary care environment because similar acronyms often refer to widely different things or simply because one profession has never been exposed to another profession’s acronym(s). While acronyms commonly serve to abbreviate lengthy words and phrases for industry insiders, they needlessly