|
Dr.
Nathan Friedman, is the author of this paper, researcher and
developer of the Iatrosedative Process. Presently retired, he
was a Clinical Professor and Chairman Section of Behavioral
Dentistry, USC School of Dentistry. Dr. Friedman has taught this process to thousands
of dental students and practicing dentists. The outcomes
of the process have enormous benefits to the patient and
to the practitioner.
Many
thanks to Dr. Friedman for his generous willingness to share this
important paper and his work with other dental professionals.
No
part of this article is to be reprinted
in any journal or newsletter without appropriate request and permission
from Dr. Friedman. This paper
originally appeared in "Emergencies in Dental Practice" by Frank
McCarthy, MD, DDS.
IATROSEDATION by Dr. Nathan Friedman, DDS Clinical
Professor and Chairman Section of Behavioral Dentistry School
of Dentistry University of Southern
California
PART
1 Introduction Terminology Components of
Iatrosedation
Initial interview
Clinical Encounters Dental
Fears How Dental Fears are learned
Direct learning
Indirect
learning Conditioning Aspects of Dental Fears
Classical
conditioning (Case history)
Generalization (Case
history) Modeling (Case
history)
PART
2 Patient’s Perception of the
Doctor The Iatrosedative Interview
Strategies of the
Interview
Model of the Iatrosedative Interview Technique of
the Iatrosedative Interview
Example and Analysis of an Iatrosedative Interview
PART
3
The "Third Ear" and the
Interview Iatrosedative Clinical Behavior
Preparatory
Communications
Iatrosedation on the "Firing Line"
PART
4
Euphemistic
Language Preparatory Interview Nonverbal Empathtic
Strategy Physical Attending Skills
Eye Contact
Facial
Expressions
Vocal Characteristics
Body Orientation
Body
Distance
Trunk Lean SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION Fear of dentistry is a worldwide health problem
of considerable significance. In the United States it is estimated
that twenty million people avoid the dentist because of fear. For
these people, fear is a more destructive lesion than caries or
periodontal disease since it is the major obstacle to their seeking
dental health care.
Avoidance of the dentist
frequently results in extensive pathology. Consequently, such
patients are driven to the dentist by some crisis-like situation;
either pain, swelling, acute infection or the last-ditch need to
have a badly destroyed dentition repaired. However, the dentist can
not "get to" the teeth until the barrier of fear is removed in some
way. Attempting to ignore the wall of fear usually leads to great
frustration and stress for the dentist and a higher fear level for
the patient.
A recent survey of
dentists indicates that 57% of those responding considered the
"difficult patient" to be the most stressful single factor in their
practices. It is clear that for both the doctor and the patient,
fear must be viewed as a significant syndrome requiring treatment.
In a sense, each time the dentist is faced with a fearful patient,
he is dealing with an emergency; not a dental emergency, but the
emergency of fear. For the dentist, facing the fearful patient may
create considerable stress, a sense of inadequacy and frustration
unless he is equipped to deal with the problem expertly.
The dentist has a
variety of ways to help the fearful patient. The use of drugs is the
traditional modality. The techniques of inhalation, intravenous,
intramuscular and oral sedation have been taught for years in dental
schools and, postdoctorally, through continuing education channels.
The techniques are well structured, the goals quite clear and the
dentists using these modalities are confident of their
effectiveness. However, it must be recognized that pharmacosedation
does not reduce or eliminate fear; it temporarily circumvents it.
Its value lays primarily in making dental treatment approachable for
the patient by diminishing awareness and producing a temporary state
of tranquility.
Treatment of the fear
syndrome requires a different technique, one with which the fear is
eliminated or significantly reduced by means of a relearning
process. The relearning process is the result of interactions
initiated by the doctor designed for this purpose.
Traditionally, sedation
has been equated with the use of drugs to induce calmness. Although
in a vague way it is conceded that the behavior of the doctor is
helpful in calming the anxious patient, it is considered a
haphazard, intuitive effort. The concept of fear treatment to be
developed in the following pages is based on a system of simple
behavioral techniques designed to accomplish the goal with maximum
efficiency and minimum use of time. This system is
Iatrosedation.
TERMINOLOGY
Iatrosedation is defined as: the act of
making calm by the doctor’s behavior. Behavior, in this sense,
includes a broad spectrum of verbal and non-verbal communication
(behavior). The word was formulated by combining the prefix "Iatra"
(pertaining to the doctor) with sedation (the act of making
calm).
Pharmacosedation is defined
as: the act of making calm with the use of drugs. Psychosedation is defined as the act of
making calm though psychology. It is distinguished from organ
sedation wherein some part of the body is calmed, e.g., cardiac
sedation. Psychosedation, then, is the generic term for
psychological calming and includes:
- Iatrosedation
- Pharmacosedation
In treating the fearful
patient, Iatrosedation is primary and Pharmacosedation secondary.
The fear is reduced to the lowest level possible with Iatrosedation.
If this level is not sufficiently low to permit the patient to cope
with the dental experience, Pharmacosedation is used supplementally.
In most instances, however, Iatrosedation alone will reduce the fear
to a functional level.
Components of Iatrosedative Process Iatrosedation has two
components:
- An Iatrosedative
interview
- The Iatrosedative clinical
encounter
1. The Iatrosedative Interview The
first meeting of doctor and patient is an interview in the literal
sense of the word; that is, a view between two people. If in the
course of this interchange the patient indicates either verbally or
nonverbally that he/she is anxious, the doctor responds by
initiating an iatrosedative interview. The procedure is designed to
identify the fear problem, make a diagnosis and initiate treatment.
The fear level will drop as the interview progresses so that a
substantive decrease will be achieved at its completion. Usually,
the interview does not complete the relearning process in which the
fear is eliminated or maximally reduced. This occurs during the
second phase of the iatrosedative process, the iatrosedative
clinical encounters.
2. The Iatrosedative Clinical Encounters The first clinical encounter is crucial. This is the "firing
line." The patient and the doctor are going to face together what
the patient perceives as dangerous. The doctor’s behavioral
technique must be structured to blend with his clinical techniques
to provide the maximum feeling of safety for the patient. Often this
first clinical interaction will result in a successful learning
experience, eliminating the fear entirely; that is, dropping the
level to what is considered within the normal anxiety range. If this
does not occur, subsequent clinical encounters will continue to
decrease the fear until the maximum effect of iatrosedation is
achieved.
There are instances
where the iatrosedative interview does not drop the fear level
sufficiently and the patient requires some pharmacosedation to face
the first clinical encounter. The choice of modality is worked out
together, based on the patient’s previous experiences and feelings
about the use of drugs and the methods of administering them. Many
people have anxieties about inhalation sedation because of imagined
threat to breathing, some about intravenous sedation based on a
feeling of loss of control, while others object to the use of drugs
in any form.
DENTAL FEARS Every
dentist is familiar with the more obvious fears patients may have,
for example:
- Fear of Pain
- Fear of the "Drill"
– There may be several components besides that of producing
pain, e.g. mutilation due to slipping, the sense of cutting, the
noise, smell, etc.
- Fear of the
"Needle" – The most common fear is that of pain of injection.
There are others however, such as fear of deep penetration,
tissue injury, numbness, etc.
- Fear of Surgery –
Periodontal and oral surgery may be feared because of fantasies
of mutilation, threat to body image, pain, etc.
- Fear of the Loss of
Teeth
This partial list will
suffice. However, other fears invariably are combined with the above
obvious ones. Frequently these are the more important fears that are
not apparent to the patient or the doctor until they surface during
the interview. These are fears that all people have normally but
which are exaggerated when bound up with the dental fears listed
above. They are:
- Fear of the Unknown
- Fear of
Helplessness and Dependency
- Fear of Body Damage
and Body Change
Each of these heightened
fears, when they exist must be dealt with in the iatrosedative
process. As we shall see, there are specific techniques designed to
deal with these components of the problem.
HOW DENTAL FEARS ARE LEARNED
Basically, fear of the dentist is
learned. It can be learned in a variety of ways and is expressed in
seemingly limitless kinds of experience. However, irrespective of
how the fear was learned and what the central focus is, be it pain,
the drill or needle, the ultimately important element in defusing
that fear will be the behavior of the present doctor and the
feelings generated in the patient as a consequence of such
behavior.
Fear may be learned as a consequence of direct or indirect
experiences. A direct experience is one in which the
individual has suffered some traumatic incident or threat of trauma
in a dental or medical therapeutic situation. Traumatic experiences
not related to medicine or dentistry can spread to the dental
situation if there is some triggering reminiscent
occurrence.
An indirect experience is one in which the
fear is learned vicariously. The most frequent vicarious source is
the family; father, mother or sibling. The child may learn to be
fearful as a consequence of observing a parent’s experience or
hearing of it. The same would hold true for those of siblings or
friends. Other vicarious experiences result from viewing motion
pictures, television skits and cartoons portraying painful or
threatening dental scenes.
These experiences most
frequently occur during childhood. The memories of the events and
the feelings associated with them may persist throughout life unless
relearning occurs. Fortunately, the ability to unlearn and relearn
is resident in each individual.
The Conditioning Aspect of Dental Fears
Classical conditionin g
Heightened fear of the dentist and the dental experience may be
viewed as a conditioned response in some instances, similar to the
response found in Pavlovian classical conditioning. A brief review
of this paradigm is:
Pavlov offered food
(unconditioned stimulus) to dogs and this resulted in salivation
(unconditioned response). Pavlov then presented food to the same
dogs, but simultaneously paired it with a bell tone (conditioned
stimulus). After a critical number of pairings, the sound of the
bell became a sufficient stimulus to produce salivation
(conditioned response).
An example of a direct
dental experience that can be likened to conditioning is as
follows:
A child is taken to a
dentist. An aversion stimulus such as pain elicits a response of
high fear. The pain may be caused by the drill or the needle, but
it is the dentist that is paired with the instrument that produces
the pain. The dentist then may be likened to a conditioned
stimulus and the fear associated with the appearance or thought of
the dentist may be likened to a conditioned
response.
Although the above
example is likened to classical conditioning, an overlay of
interrelated variables may be conceptualized. The histories of many
patients reveal fear-learning patterns, leading to an assumption
that more is involved than the simple pairing of the dentist with
the pain or the instrument causing the pain. The behavior of the
dentist seems to be a powerful component of the traumatic
experience. The normal fears of helplessness, dependency and the
unknown are markedly intensified and become, with the pain, a part
of the conditioned response that includes all of those fears. Yet
the fear will be labeled simply "fear of pain."
A simple example of such
conditioning is reflected in the behavior of a 45 year old male
patient who visited the dentist for an examination. He was extremely
anxious and had been for two days prior to the visit. His history
revealed that when he was about five years of age, he was taken to
the dentist by his father to have a tooth extracted. He had a vivid
memory of pain and of being pinned down by his father and the
dentist. During the struggle the overwhelming experience of force,
pain, injury and the total violation of trust and denial of any
protection against frightening danger was imprinted on the child’s
brain. His father’s behavior compounded that of the dentist’s and
the conditioning was magnified in intensity. The fears of
helplessness, dependency and the unknown clearly are integrated with
the painful experience.
One such traumatic event
can result in a life-long conditioned response of high anxiety
unless relearning or counter-conditioning takes place. Iatrosedation
is designed to reduce or eliminate high anxiety through relearning
(counter-conditioning).
GENERALIZATION Conditioning
also results in generalization; that is, its effects spread from the
original traumatic circumstances to situations which have similar
elements, e.g., medical experiences generalize to dental situations
if similar cues are involved.
Childhood experiences
with surgery such as tonsillectomies are a common source of fear
learning that may be generalized to the dental scene. This is true
not only in relation to mutilation or pain but the experience with
general or local anesthesia.
Injections for
immunization, for the administration of antibiotics or local
anesthetics to dress or suture traumatic wounds may be originating
circumstances for the heightening of fear and anxiety. An example of
generalization is as follows:
J.B., a muscular, vigorous looking man, 30 years of age during
the initial interview, stated that he did not want local anesthesia
for any restorative procedure. When asked if there was some reason
for this he said that he feared injections; that in the past he
reacted to them with nausea, palpitations and would turn white even
at the thought of a "shot". Pain was not a factor but in the course
of the interview it became apparent that the deep penetration of
the needle, as in a mandibular injection, seemed to have been a
disturbing experience. Pursuing this cue precipitated an association
with childhood experiences. Between the ages of 7 and 10, Joe had
suffered a number of accidental injuries such as scalp wounds and
deep cuts about the face and legs. Each time these emergencies arose
he was rushed to the physician or hospital amidst considerable
anxiety and would have an injection for local anesthesia to permit
suturing, followed by an injection of an antibiotic. Consequently,
injections became associated with body injury, crisis, fear and pain, and a locked-in conditioned
response developed. Each time Joe had to face an injection of any
type, or in the area of the body, he would suffer acute anxiety.
This was generalized to an intra-oral injection for dental
anesthesia. In an attempt to avoid this anxiety when having dental
restorative procedures, he refused to have injections of local
anesthetics.
MODELING Another method of learning is through modeling. This is an
indirect or vicarious learning experience. Fears often arise in
children because of their observations of traumatic experiences of
parents, siblings, or friends, or hearing stories of these
experiences. This kind of learning also may take place as a result
of seeing traumatic dental scenes portrayed in television skits,
motion pictures or cartoons.
The parental scene is a
common and powerful learning arena for fear as evidenced by the
following history. Here the patient refuses injections for local
anesthesia just as J.B did (above), but he fear is based on a
modeling learning experience rather than a direct one.
A woman, 45 years of
age, refused injections for dental treatment stating that she feared
them tremendously. When asked what there was about the injection
that she feared, she responded that she didn’t know. She had not had
any traumatic experiences at the hands of dentists or physicians as
a child or as an adult/ Seemingly, there was no reason for the fear.
When questioned about blood tests she replied that she would not
have them. When asked about immunization injections as a child she
said that neither she nor her sister had them because her mother, a
nurse, "didn’t believe in them." The dentist interpreted this to
indicate that a small child being told this by her mother (a nurse
as well) would feel that "shots" were dangerous and must be avoided.
He approached the solution to the problem using this interpretation
as the starting point.
In the above history,
the fear was not linked with the behavior of a doctor or some other
authoritative figure. This usually is not the case. In most
instances the tales heard from others or scenes viewed on television
will include the dentist’s unsympathetic behavior linked with the
traumatic event. A small child accepts these impressions as real and
universal and consequently may face the first dental experience with
fear.
A dentist who is
cognizant of the symptoms of fear example of modeling based on
observation of events portrayed on the screen is as
follows:
A 47-year-old male
stated, "I have a terrible fear of the dentist." He characterized
his mouth as a "disaster area", not having had attention for a
number of years. He stated that he tolerated pain well and that he
has had pain all his adult life since he was injured and disabled in
service. "It’s probably more the anticipation than the actual act
that worries me…I tolerate pain fairly well." The learning to fear
the dentist started as a child because, as he stated, "…it seems to
be part of our social syndrome to be afraid of dentists. I remember
I used to see movies … comedies, you know … the guy gets in there,
‘this isn’t going to hurt’ and wow! You know. It's supposed to be funny but it scares you and you’re
supposed to overcome that fear…" The story unfolded in a way that
suggested that when he did go to the dentist he had high
anticipatory anxiety, indulging a heightened fear of the unknown
which he characterized as, "the strangeness of having a hand groping
in there with sharp instruments and cutting away at things that
normally are not cut upon…" Interrelated with the unknown was the
potential body damage that the "strange hand" may create.
Knowledge of the
learning paradigms is essential to the effective use of the
technique of iatrosedation. Similarly, it is important to understand
the significance to the patient of the doctor’s behavior in all
aspects of dental care. The significance of such behavior becomes
even more consequential where anxiety is a dominant factor fear and
its treatment can dispel this type of anxiety quite easily. If on
the other hand, he is unaware or ignores it, a more powerful fear
learning experience will occur, precipitated by the dentist’s inept
behavior when trying to treat the teeth of a frightened
child.
Continued: Technique of the Iatrosedative
Interview ...Click here for page 2 of this
paper
Suzanne
Boswell Presentations
- 12108 Amoretto Way,
Raleigh, NC 27613 USA Phone:
919-845-4189 - Fax:
919-845-4188 Email :Suzanne@BoswellPresentations.com Website:www.BoswellPresentations.com
|