scholarly journals Instruments for assessing health professionals’ skills in breaking bad news: protocol for a systematic review of measurement properties

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e048019
Author(s):  
Daniel Gutierrez-Sanchez ◽  
Marina García-Gámez ◽  
Juan Pablo Leiva-Santos ◽  
Inmaculada Lopez-Leiva
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Breaking Bad News ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Breaking Bad ◽  
Evaluation Approach

IntroductionHealth professionals are often involved in the process of breaking bad news (BBN), which remains a difficult challenge, as it requires not only theoretical knowledge, but also the development of humanistic, emotional and communication skills. Therefore, optimal BBN assessment is essential. In this regard, sound measurement instruments are needed to evaluate BBN properly in research, teaching and clinical settings. Several instruments have been designed and validated to assess BBN. In this context, choosing the most appropriate instrument for assessing health professionals’ skills in BBN is essential. The aims of this systematic review are to: (1) identify all the instruments used for assessing health professionals’ skills in BBN; and (2) critically appraise their measurement properties.MethodsA systematic review will be undertaken according to the most up-to-date COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments’ (COSMIN) methodology. The protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. The search strategy will be conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, SciELO and Open Grey. Two review authors will independently appraise the full-text articles according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Quality ratings and evidence synthesis will be performed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207586.

Health professionals’ perceptions of breaking bad news

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 324-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dickson ◽  
Owen Hargie ◽  
Karen Brunger ◽  
Karyn Stapleton
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad

The experiences of health professionals, patients, and families with truth disclosure when breaking bad news in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Miller ◽  
Joanne E. Porter ◽  
Michael S. Barbagallo
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Terminal Care ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad News ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Truth Disclosure ◽  
Breaking Bad

Abstract Objective Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news continues to be difficult for health professionals, yet it is essential for patients when making informed decisions about their treatment and end-of-life care. This literature review aimed to explore and examine how health professionals, patients, and families experience truth disclosure during the delivery of bad news in the inpatient/outpatient palliative care setting. Methods A systemized search for peer-reviewed, published papers between 2013 and 2020 was undertaken in September 2020 using the CINAHL, Medline, and PsycInfo databases. The keywords and MeSH terms (“truth disclosure”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) were used. The search was repeated using (“bad news”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) terms. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to synthesize the findings from the eight papers. Results Eight papers were included in the meta-synthesis and were represented by five Western countries. Following the synthesis process, two concepts were identified: “Enablers in breaking bad news” and “Truth avoidance/disclosure.” Several elements formed the concept of Enablers for breaking bad news, such as the therapeutic relationship, reading cues, acknowledgment, language/delivery, time/place, and qualities. A conceptual model was developed to illustrate the findings of the synthesis. Significance of results The conceptual model demonstrates a unique way to look at communication dynamics around truth disclosure and avoidance when breaking bad news. Informed decision-making requires an understanding of the whole truth, and therefore truth disclosure is an essential part of breaking bad news.

VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING EXPERIENCE TO TRAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS FOR BREAKING BAD NEWS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Villarejo-Muñoz ◽  
Chloe Ballester ◽  
Carmen Blanco ◽  
Marian Irazabal ◽  
Alba Coll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad

Effect of Breaking Bad News on Patients’ Perceptions of Doctors

2002 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 343-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandy M Barnett
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Original Sample ◽  
Breaking Bad News ◽  
Breaking Bad ◽  
Screening Questionnaires ◽  
The Subject ◽  
News Event

The breaking of bad news is a routine but difficult task for many health professionals. There are numerous anecdotes of insensitive practice but the subject has attracted little systematic research. We therefore interviewed 106 patients with advanced cancer (from an original sample of 195) to assess their perceptions of the doctors involved in their care. Aspects of the ‘breaking bad news’ event were recorded during discussion of the illness history and were subsequently rated. Participants were also asked to nominate doctors under the headings ‘most helpful’ and ‘less helpful’, and completed standardized psychological screening questionnaires. In 94 of the 106 cases the bad news had been given by a doctor, usually a surgeon. Of the 13 doctors categorized as ‘most helpful’ when breaking bad news, 8 were general practitioners; of the 7 categorized as ‘less helpful’ all were surgeons. 69% of patients were neutral or positive about the bad-news consultation, but 20% were negative and 6% very negative. Doctors in surgical specialties were significantly more likely to be rated poorly than non-surgical specialists or general practitioners. Surgeons were the group of doctors most likely to break bad news, but non-surgical doctors were rated more positively in performance of the task. This finding has implications for training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document