title: Does language ambiguity in clinical practice justify the introduction of standard terminology? An integrative review.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To research the use of ambiguous language in written information concerning patients' functioning and to identify problems resulting from the use of ambiguous language in clinical practice.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Many projects that aimed to introduce standard terminology concerning patients' functioning in clinical practice are unsuccessful because standard terminology is rarely used in clinical practice. These projects mainly aim to improve communication by reducing ambiguous language. Considering their lack of success, the validity of the argument that language ambiguity is used in clinical practice is questioned.
  
  
  METHODS
  An integrative literature review.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic search of the MEDLINE (1950-2012) and CINAHL (1982-2012) databases was undertaken, including empirical and theoretical literature. The selected studies were critically appraised using a data assessment and extraction form.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen of 767 papers were included in the review and synthesis. The use of ambiguous language in written information concerning patients' functioning was demonstrated. Problems resulting from the use of ambiguous language in clinical practice were not identified. However, several potential problems were suggested, including hindered clinical decision-making and limited research opportunities.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results of this review demonstrated the use of ambiguous language concerning patients' functioning, but health professionals in clinical practice did not experience this issue as a problem. This finding might explain why many projects aimed at introducing standard terminology concerning functioning in clinical practice to solve problems caused by ambiguous language are often unsuccessful. Language ambiguity alone is not a valid argument to justify the introduction of standard terminology.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The introduction of standard terminology concerning patients' functioning will only be successful when clinical practice requires the aggregation and reuse of data from electronic patient records for different purposes, including multidisciplinary decision-making and research.
authors.affiliation: School of Nursing & Health, Wenckebach Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Hillegonda A
authors.initials: HA
authors.lastname: Stallinga
authors.forename: Huib
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: ten Napel
authors.forename: Gerard J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Jansen
authors.forename: Jan H B
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Geertzen
authors.forename: Pieter F
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: de Vries Robbé
authors.forename: Petrie F
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: Roodbol
mesh_terms: D003144:Communication Barriers; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000592:standards*; D009626:Terminology as Topic
keywords: communication; disability; functioning; literature review; terminology