How doctors record breaking bad news in ovarian cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Revealing the diagnosis of cancer to patients is a key event in their cancer journey. At present, there are no minimal legal recommendations for documenting such consultations. We reviewed the Hospital records of 359 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in the Mersey Area between 1992 and 1994. We identified the following factors: age, hospital, postcode, surgeon, stage of disease and survival. These were compared to information recorded at the time of the interview such as person present, descriptive words used, prognosis, further treatment and emotional response. In 11.6%, there was no information recorded in the notes. The diagnosis was recorded in 304 (94.7%), prognosis in 66 (20.6%) and collusion with relatives in 33 (10.3%). A total of 42 separate words/phrases were identified relating to diagnosis; cancer was recorded in 60 (19.6%). Collusion was three times as common in the patients over 65 years (17.9 vs 5.7%, P=0.001). There was a reduction in the number of diagnostic words recorded in the patients over 65 years (90.3 vs 98.3%, P=0.002) and by type of surgeon (P=0.001). Information was often poorly recorded in the notes. We have shown that the quality of information varies according to patient age, surgeon and specialty.
Project description:BACKGROUND: The concerns of patients suffering from life-threatening disease and end-of-life care aspects have gained increasing attention in public perception. The increasing focus on palliative medicine questions can be considered to be paradigmatic for this development. Palliative medicine became a compulsory subject of the undergraduate curriculum in Germany to be implemented until 2013. The preexisting conditions and qualifications at the medical faculties vary, though. We describe the conceptual process, didactic background, and first experiences with the new interdisciplinary course "Delivering bad news" as a compulsory part of the palliative medicine curriculum. METHODS: Since autumn 2009, this course has been taught at the University Medical Center Göttingen, consisting of two double lessons in the final year of medical education. Considering the curriculum-based learning goals in Göttingen, the focus of this course is to impart knowledge, attitudes and communication skills relating to "bad news". RESULTS: Although the seminar requires adequate staff and is time-consuming, students have accepted it and gave high marks in evaluations. In particular, the teachers' performance and commitment was evaluated positively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We describe the first experiences with a new course. Didactic structure, theoretical contents, role-plays and usage of media (film, novel) are well- suited to communicate topics such as "bad news". Additional experiences and evaluations are necessary. According to the progressive nature of learning, it might be worthwhile to repeat communication- centered questions several times during medical studies.
Project description:Objective This study was performed with the aims of screening the previous studies on breaking bad news in all medical wards. Methods Eligible observational studies were selected. The quality of the studies was assessed using the STROBE checklist. The findings were reported using Garrard's table. All the stages of the present study were performed in terms of the PRISMA statement. Results Totally, 40 articles were included in the study and 96 items were extracted. The results show that breaking bad news is a recipient-centered process. Respect, empathy, and support were reported. The news presenters are better to use guidelines based on evidence-based findings. It is suggested that the presenter should use simple and understandable content. Moreover, suitable time and space are important to present the news. The results show the importance of paying enough attention to the emotions of the recipient and the need to provide support after breaking bad news. Conclusion The recipient must be the center of the programs. It is necessary to pay attention to the characteristics of the news presenter, the news content, and finally the support. Practice Implication: Understand the recipient, trained presenter, and use of the evidence-based results, improve the breaking bad news outcome.
Project description:As the ophthalmology accreditation system undergoes major changes, training programs must evaluate residents in the 6 core competencies, including appropriately communicating bad news. Although the literature is replete with recommendations for breaking bad news across various non-ophthalmology specialties, no formal training programs exist for ophthalmology. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from our colleagues regarding this important skill. We examine the historic basis for breaking bad news, explore current recommendations among other specialties, and then evaluate a pilot study in breaking bad news for ophthalmology residents. The results of this study are limited by a small number of residents at a single academic center. Future studies from multiple training programs should be conducted to further evaluate the need and efficacy of formal communication skills training in this area, as well as the generalizability of our pilot training program. If validated, this work could serve as a template for future ophthalmology resident training and evaluation in this core competency.
Project description:BackgroundBreaking bad news is one of the most difficult aspects of communication in medicine. The objective of this study was to assess the relevance of a novel active learning course on breaking bad news for fifth-year students.MethodsStudents were divided into two groups: Group 1, the intervention group, participated in a multidisciplinary formative discussion workshop on breaking bad news with videos, discussions with a pluri-professional team, and concluding with the development of a guide on good practice in breaking bad news through collective intelligence; Group 2, the control group, received no additional training besides conventional university course. The relevance of discussion-group-based active training was assessed in a summative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) station particularly through the students' communication skills.ResultsThirty-one students were included: 17 in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2. The mean (range) score in the OSCE was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (10.49 out of 15 (7; 13) vs. 7.80 (4.75; 12.5), respectively; p = 0.0007). The proportion of students assessed by the evaluator to have received additional training in breaking bad news was 88.2% (15 of the 17) in Group 1 and 21.4% (3 of the 14) in Group 2 (p = 0.001). The intergroup differences in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Jefferson Scale of Empathy scores were not significant, and both scores were not correlated with the students' self-assessed score for success in the OSCE.ConclusionCompared to the conventional course, this new active learning method for breaking bad news was associated with a significantly higher score in a summative OSCE. A longer-term validation study is needed to confirm these exploratory data.
Project description:BackgroundCommunication of bad news plays a critical role in the physician-patient relationship, and a variety of consensus guidelines have been developed to this purpose, including the SPIKES protocol. However, little is known about physicians' attitudes towards breaking bad news and to be trained to deliver it. This study aimed to develop and validate a self-report questionnaire to assess physicians' attitudes towards principles of the SPIKES protocol and training on them.MethodsThe Breaking Bad News Attitudes Scale (BBNAS) was administered to 484 pediatricians and 79 medical students, recruited at two scientific conferences and two medical schools in Brazil. The questionnaire structural validity, reliability, and associations with other variables were tested.ResultsThe BBNAS showed adequate validity and good reliability, with two factors measuring attitudes towards the SPIKES strategy for braking bad news (α = 0.81) and the possibility to be trained on it (α = 0.77), respectively.ConclusionThe novel questionnaire is a psychometrically sound measure that provides information on physicians' agreement with the SPIKES protocol. The BBNAS can provide useful information for planning training and continuing education programs for clinicians on communication of bad news using the SPIKES as a framework.
Project description:Hematologists adequately disclosing bad news is a critical point precluding patient-centered communication. Specific courses on communication for hematologists seem to be rare, as well as research exploring their communicative skills and patterns. We aim at describing the hematologists' behavior during difficult conversations to account for behavioral patterns in communication and provide new insights regarding teaching skills to communicate bad news. We employed a focused visual ethnography to answer the following research: "what are hematologists' behavioral patterns in communicating bad news to patients and families?" The collected data included (1) video recordings, (2) observational field notes, (3) interviews with hematologists. The analysis highlighted four patterns: (1) a technical-defensive pattern, (2) an authoritative pattern, (3) a relational-recursive pattern, and (4) a compassionate sharing pattern. Hematologists seem to have difficulty expressing compassionate caring and empathetic comprehension. Communication skills remain a challenge for hematologists. The study of behavioral patterns can lead to increasingly targeted training interventions for this specific learner population.
Project description:ObjectiveLittle is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities.Patients and methodsWe included women with cervical cancer who underwent radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT group, n = 110), radical hysterectomy or chemo-radiation (HE/RCT group, n = 101), and women with CIN 3 treated by loop excision (CIN group, n = 108). We asked the participants about how they received the bad news delivery in reality and how they would envision an ideal communication process based on the main items of the SPIKES protocol. The participants filled out a questionnaire with 38 items of the Marburg Breaking Bad News (MABBAN) Scale representing the six SPIKES subscales.ResultsOnly 72% of all patients reported being satisfied with their BBN experience. The following factors were considered important by 90% of the patients: an undisturbed atmosphere, taking enough time, coherent explanation of the disease, and the possibility to ask questions. However, the reality of their experiences fell significantly short of their expectations. Asking about the patient's knowledge of the disease, addressing their concerns, allowing them to show emotions, providing clarity about the change in quality of life, informing them about alternative therapies, and involving them in further planning were also significantly lacking in the actual BBN encounters compared to the patients' preferences. The experience of RVT patients was more negative compared to the HE/RCT patients (p = 0.036). The CIN patients had an overall satisfactory impression (p < 0.0001).ConclusionThe process of breaking bad news in German women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia requires substantial improvement. The SPIKES protocol can be used as a guideline for enhancement but should be supplemented by incorporating a second consultation as the norm rather than the exception. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of BBN is recommended for all oncologic institutions, utilizing the MABBAN questionnaire as a valuable tool.
Project description:Delivering difficult news to parents of children with neurodisabilities, often involving new diagnoses, prognosis changes, or declines in function or health, presents a complex task. Our aim was to assess physicians' self-perceived competence in breaking bad news (BBN) within this context. An online survey was administered to neuropediatricians and developmental and rehabilitation pediatricians in Switzerland. Among 247 invited physicians, 62 (25.1%) responded (age of 51 ± 11 years; M/F ratio of 2:3). They rated their BBN competence at 7.5 ± 1.6 out of 10. Factors significantly associated with self-perceived competence in uni- and multivariate analyses included years of professional experience (≤10 years: 6.2 ± 1.8; >10 years: 8.2 ± 0.8), and region of pregraduate training (Switzerland: 7.3 ± 1.6; European Union: 8.3 ± 0.9). The respondents highlighted the positive roles of professional and personal experience, quality relationships with families, and empathy in BBN. In summary, physicians generally expressed a sense of competence in delivering difficult news to parents of children with neurodisabilities. They underscored the significance of life experiences and certain individual qualities in their effectiveness. These findings provide valuable insights into enhancing professional training and support in this crucial yet underexplored aspect of medical practice.
Project description:Background: Breaking bad news is a frequent task in high-risk obstetrics clinics. Few studies have examined the role of training in improving such a difficult medical task. Aim: To evaluate the influence of a training program on the participants' perceptions of bad news communication at a high-risk obstetrics center. Design: This prospective study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Hospital das Clinicas, from March 2016 to May 2017. Setting/Participants: Maternal-fetal health specialists were invited to complete an institutional questionnaire based on the SPIKES protocol for communicating bad news before and after training. The training consisted of theoretical lectures and small group practice using role play. The questionnaire responses were compared using nonparametric tests to evaluate the differences in physicians' perceptions at the two timepoints. The questionnaire items were evaluated individually and in groups following the communication steps of the SPIKES protocol. Results: In total, 110 physicians were invited to participate. Ninety completed the pretraining questionnaire and 40 answered the post-training questionnaire. After training, there were significant improvements in knowing how to prepare the environment before delivering bad news (p = 0.010), feeling able to transmit bad news (p < 0.001), and to discuss the prognosis (p = 0.026), feeling capable of discussing ending the pregnancy (p = 0.003), and end-of-life issues (p = 0.007) and feeling confident about answering difficult questions (p = 0.004). The comparison of the grouped responses following the steps of the SPIKES protocol showed significant differences for "knowledge" (p < 0.001), "emotions," (p = 0.004) and "strategy and summary" (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The implementation of institutional training in breaking bad news changed the perception of the physicians in the communication setting.