Describe the DESC script as applied to patient-family conflicts.

Describe the DESC script as applied to patient-family conflicts.

• A. Describe the situation, Express concerns, Specify goals, Consequences
• B. Describe the situation, Acknowledge concerns, Suggest changes, Consequences
• C. Describe the situation, Express concerns, Specify changes, Consequences
• D. Describe the situation, Encourage discussion, Specify changes, Consequences

Answer: (C)

The DESC script is a clear, practical way to handle patient-family conflicts by laying out the situation, sharing concerns, outlining specific requests, and clarifying what will happen next. In practice, you start by describing the situation factually—who is involved, what was said or done, and what the current care process looks like—without blaming anyone. Then you express your concerns about how the situation affects patient care, safety, or alignment with the patient’s goals, using I-statements to keep the tone respectful and nondefensive. This helps the other person hear the impact without getting defensive. Next you specify concrete changes you want. Instead of vague suggestions, you spell out actionable steps—such as arranging a goals-of-care discussion, updating the care plan, or adjusting the level of treatment—and what exactly you want to see changed. Finally you state the consequences or next steps if those changes aren’t possible. This isn’t a threat; it’s a clear description of what will happen next if there’s no agreement, such as bringing in a supervisor, ethics consultation, or scheduling a follow-up discussion within a set timeframe. Why this fits best: the sequence balances clarity with empathy, keeps the conversation focused on patient-centered goals, and provides a concrete path forward. It emphasizes concrete requests and accountability, which helps reduce misunderstanding and defensiveness during tense discussions.

The DESC script is a clear, practical way to handle patient-family conflicts by laying out the situation, sharing concerns, outlining specific requests, and clarifying what will happen next. In practice, you start by describing the situation factually—who is involved, what was said or done, and what the current care process looks like—without blaming anyone.

Then you express your concerns about how the situation affects patient care, safety, or alignment with the patient’s goals, using I-statements to keep the tone respectful and nondefensive. This helps the other person hear the impact without getting defensive.

Next you specify concrete changes you want. Instead of vague suggestions, you spell out actionable steps—such as arranging a goals-of-care discussion, updating the care plan, or adjusting the level of treatment—and what exactly you want to see changed.

Finally you state the consequences or next steps if those changes aren’t possible. This isn’t a threat; it’s a clear description of what will happen next if there’s no agreement, such as bringing in a supervisor, ethics consultation, or scheduling a follow-up discussion within a set timeframe.

Why this fits best: the sequence balances clarity with empathy, keeps the conversation focused on patient-centered goals, and provides a concrete path forward. It emphasizes concrete requests and accountability, which helps reduce misunderstanding and defensiveness during tense discussions.