Achieving excellence in healthcare communication requires multiple skills. When conflict arises we are programmed to respond with exasperation and negative judgment. In healthcare, this is especially dangerous. When your patient is in a critical state, the decision about whether to intubate before or after a trip to the CT is best reached with minimal conflict. Jenny Rudolph takes a refreshing angle on the practise of mastering yourself in difficult moments so that patient care is not compromised, and professional and personal relationships are not weakened. Conflict can be healthy when constructive. When making difficult decisions for patient treatment and care this friction or conflict can be even more important. This is because at this critical moment we should be sceptical about our decision making process, when we tend not to be. Equally, in a disagreement, we are often certain when we ought not to be. However, if there is too much prickly feedback and defensiveness on both sides, solutions are often difficult to deliver. When faced with such challenges in communication, Jenny discusses how to reset, and to reframe the situation and avoid reacting with negative emotion She explains the battle between judgement and curiosity when faced with difficult situations. They are both normal. It just so happens we are naturally curious about that which fascinates and interests us and judgemental about the irritating and appalling. By challenging listeners to get curious, Jenny explores techniques to manage conflict in high stress, time pressured, critical care conversations. She advocates for the efficiency and effectiveness of infusing positive regard into our interactions. Join Jenny as she guides you through reconciling curiosity and judgement, providing practical tips to use in the Emergency Department or Intensive Care Unit, alongside moments of catharsis!

1. Helping without Harming:
Transforming Critical Care Conflicts Through
Curiousity
Jenny Rudolph, PhD
Center for Medical Simulation
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Social Media in Academic Critical Care
Berlin, 2017

2. The battle of the amygdala versus pre-frontal
cortex under stress in difficult conversations
In high stakes conversations...
Dysfunctional reactions are overdetermined!
How?
 Fundamental attribution error
 Intent-impact mismatch
 System 1—unawareness, speed, automaticity ,(over) confidence
The way out? The neuropsychology of curiosity and positive regard
From automatic to deliberate processing under threat
 Why care?? a pay-off for clinical management, interprofessional
collaboration and patient care
Rudolph and Repenning, 2002 Academy of Management Review

3. Virtuous or viscous cycles in conversation??
A reinforcing loop propels us to be over-confident, even fixate on our beliefs about others
Rudolph, Morrison, Carroll 2009 Academy of Management Review
Cues
Available
Plausibility of
Leading
DiagnosisUpdating
Time Needed
to Update
Plausibility from
New Cues
Weight on
Cues
Effect of
Plausibilityon Cue Interpretation
R
Self-Fulfilling
Interpretation Loop

6. Judgment is normal
Curiosity is normal

8. What The
F**K???

12.  Bayfield versus Hayes

14. Certainty
This is the most defining and dangerous characteristic of
certainty: it is toxic to a shift in a perspective.
When we are caught up in our own convictions, other
people’s stories ––
which is to say other people—
cease to exist.
Kathryn Schultz, Being Wrong, Adventures at the Margin of Error

15. What’s missing?

17. What’s love got to do
with it?!

18. Why?

19. @s_eller
WTF
To...
WTF
(What’s the
frame?)
(Susan Eller)

20. What The
F**K???

21. WTF?
?
What’s the
Frame?

23. What’s the
frame?