Search for a command to run...
<h3>Introduction</h3> Clear and honest communication is vital in enabling patients to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care. However, health professionals often rely on euphemisms defined as indirect or softened language when discussing death and dying. The use of euphemistic language in hospice settings, including its motivations and impact, remains underexplored. <h3>Aims</h3> 1. To examine whether and how clinicians use euphemisms in interactions with hospice patients. 2. To explore clinicians’ motivations for using euphemistic language. 3. To identify perceived barriers to more direct communication. 4. To assess patients’ perceptions of clarity and transparency in clinician discussions. <h3>Methods</h3> A qualitative phenomenological approach was employed through non-participant observation over nine weeks (two days per week) in a hospice inpatient unit. Ten clinicians consented to participate, and nine purposively approached patients agreed. Twenty-five inpatient review encounters were observed and analysed using thematic analysis of field notes, supported by reflective memos. <h3>Results</h3> Clinicians frequently substituted direct terms such as ‘die,’ ‘dead,’ or ‘dying’ with euphemisms like ‘pass,’ ‘less well,’ or ‘it.’ Euphemisms were often perceived as ‘kinder,’ though some clinicians later questioned their appropriateness. Language choices were formed by efforts to reduce distress, respect professional boundaries, and respond to perceived patient discomfort with end-of-life conversations. Clinicians often shifted between euphemistic and direct language based on contextual cues and patient reactions. In contrast, patients generally expressed a preference for clear, direct communication, viewing euphemisms as obscuring the reality of their situation. <h3>Conclusion and Implications</h3> Clinicians in hospice care navigate a complex balance between empathy and clarity. While euphemisms may be intended to soften difficult conversations, many patients favour direct language. Training should support clinicians in critically reflecting on their communication strategies, promoting transparency while remaining sensitive to individual needs.