Patient-clinician communication in longitudinal care settings about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adult traumas: A systematic review of reviews.
Anita S Hargrave-Bouagnon, Jessica Escober, Genesis Talavera and 3 others
PMID 41092546WHAT IT FOUND
Trauma screening alone was not endorsed as a stand-alone intervention.
Supportive communication, confidentiality, and follow-up resources were essential before asking patients about trauma.
Key findings
01Screening was not endorsed as a stand-alone intervention, and reviews said it needed follow-up resources and organizational support.
02Privacy, confidentiality, non-judgmental responses, and validation were described as central to trauma communication.
03Most included reviews were critically low quality, and outcome evidence was mixed.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a review of reviews, not a trial of a communication method, so it cannot show that these strategies improve patient health. Most included reviews were rated critically low quality: 82% (N=32). The reviews used different trauma types, outcomes, and study designs, so results could not be directly compared. Few reviews named the exact screening tools, making it hard to know which questions were asked. Some primary studies may have been included in more than one review, which could overweight their findings. Health outcome evidence was mixed, and ACE communication had the most limited outcome information.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that trauma screening or trauma-informed communication improves health. Screening was not endorsed as a stand-alone intervention, outcome evidence was mixed, and most included reviews were critically low quality.