Compassionate Care and Effective Communication

Introduction

Personal values and professional ethics have a significant impact on patients' outcomes, not only in healthcare but also in social care settings. The ability to effectively transfer information and produce a great understanding of the interchange scope is considered a significant skill in healthcare and social care delivery (Shendurnikar and Thakkar, 2013). Following the topic's significance under discussion, the following essay aims to reflect on the one to one communication skills as presented in a chosen case study. The case study constitutes Jenny, who has severe arthritis, her husband, Morris, is helping this. Besides, the two are supported by Amina, who noticed deterioration in Jenny's status, which saw the husband struggling with the necessary chores.

Consequently, Amina's manager sought the intervention of a social worker, Alicia. Thus, the conversation presented in the case study is between Alicia, Jenny, and her husband, Morris. Therefore, the essay aims to reflect on the communication to identify presenting the strengths and weaknesses and the ethical considerations that are taken into consideration by the social worker. Besides, the essay aims to provide a future improvement strategy for the particular identified concerns.

Analysis and reflection on the one to one working skills required, personal values, professional ethics, strengths, and weaknesses noted in the chosen scenario

In the interplay, Alicia introduced herself and informed Jenny that they should have received a visiting call. According to Banks (2012), this is ethical and professional for a social worker. Jenny wonders whether the statement was a question or information and denies that they did not receive a call. Factors of ethics and values are drawn from this interplay as the couple lacked several personal values: characteristics and behaviors that they possessed, and the social worker lacked professional ethics (Banks, 2016), though in a narrow context. It was unethical for Alicia to address the couple with their first name, as Morris considered unethical. The couples occasionally used impolite and thankless language whenever they were addressing the social worker. They are noted to be too proud before the public servant.

Alicia should have used a more defined intonation to present her words as either a question or a statement. Besides, her account seemed quite impolite. Following Bramhall's (2014) arguments, she should have had a wise choice of words; she should have asked Jenny whether they received a call on her coming rather than making it sound as if Jenny and her husband were obliged to receive a call. They would be responsible in case they didn't receive a call. As Morris noted, Alicia addressed Jenny with her first name instead of the surname, which is considered disrespectful in one-to-one communication with an older adult. Alicia apologized for this; however, she seems rude and ignorant as she furthers her apology by mentioning that she should have checked with Morris on how he would have liked to be addressed. Jenny fails to understand Alicia's statement, particularly the word address. Alicia addressed them as they desired, and they were thankful for that. According to Brown (2020), this is unethical. Jenny also seems rude in her utterances. Alicia tempts to be as professional as possible and tries to explain why she visits; the couple is impolite and responds to her questions rudely. For example, Alicia explains that the couple's support worker had noted how things were difficult for them and was concerned, thus asked for extra support; instead of appreciating, the couple complains that they did not inform the support worker that they were overburdened with the care thus they were to be consulted first before seeking extra support from the social workers.

Furthermore, instead of asking Alicia to introduce herself ultimately, the couples rudely tell Alicia that they didn't know her. They rudely claim that being asked questions were offensive as much as Alicia was trying to be decent. Also, Alicia asks if she can read the letter for them, the couples could have chosen to deny politely but proudly claims that they could manage to read on their own, contrary to suggestions by Brown (2015). Alicia requests permission to explain the letter more, but Morris responds that that was what they were there to do. This generally sounded rude as he could say that more politely. She goes on explaining everything as the couple listens. When she was done, she opts to leave; the couple opted to be thankful, but instead, Jenny instructs her husband Morris to see the young lady to the indoor. This was a possible indication that Alicia's presence might have been a bother to them rather than helpful.

The interplay had several strengths and weaknesses that were evident from the communication and the utterances. Notably, Alicia, the social worker, contributed significantly to the interplay forces through her sort of professionalism in her contact with the old couple. First, she apologizes repeatedly in instances when the couple felt offended. She explains herself precisely and politely, as emphasized by Ryabova (2015). She shows gratitude whenever the same was expected. She introduces herself and clearly describes the events that led to her presence in the couple's home (Reamer, 2013). She apologizes with her smile on her face. This shows that she does not take things personally, and thus, they do not affect her expression as a professional. She maintains etiquette in her communication, which is a demonstration of professional ethics.

On the other hand, the interplay's weaknesses are noted mostly from the couples, as argued by Lee and Cho (2019). They are rude, impolite, ignorant, and ungrateful. They respond to Alicia rudely and have zero respect for her presence and her duty as a social worker. Alicia, as a professional, would consider addressing elders with the surname. Besides, she should learn to express herself exhaustively to avoid offending her clients. She should also say distinct traits from various clients that she should learn to deal with effectively (Holtgraves and Perdew, 2016.

Conclusion

The paper has effectively addressed the communication concerns that were evident in the interplay. First, the essay introduced the interplay with a mention of the significance of practical communication skills. The paper thus presented a reflection of the one to one working skills noted in the interplay. The essay has also analyzed the ethics and values that came into play in the interplay. The interplay's strengths and weaknesses have then been mentioned together with a strategy for future improvement by the social worker for absolute communication effectiveness.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Comparing the attitudinal differences between contingent and permanent worker in health.

References

Banks, S., 2012. Ethics and values in social work. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Banks, S., 2016. Everyday ethics in professional life: Social work as ethics work. Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(1), pp.35-52.

Bramhall, E., 2014. Effective communication skills in nursing practice. Nursing Standard (2014+), 29(14), p.53.

Brown, P., 2015. Politeness and language. In The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (IESBS),(2nd ed.) (pp. 326-330). Elsevier.

Brown, P., 2020. Politeness. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, pp.1-8.

Holtgraves, T. and Perdew, A., 2016. Politeness and the communication of uncertainty. Cognition, 154, pp.1-10.)

Lee, J. and Cho, M., 2019. New insights into socially responsible consumers: The role of personal values. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(2), pp.123-133.

Reamer, F.G., 2013. Social work values and ethics. Columbia University Press.

Ryabova, M., 2015. Politeness Strategy in Everyday Communication. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, pp.90-95.

Shendurnikar, N. and Thakkar, P.A., 2013. Communication skills to ensure patient satisfaction. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 80(11), pp.938-943.