Breaking bad news: explaining cancer diagnosis and prognosis

1999 ◽  
Vol 171 (6) ◽  
pp. 288-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Peter Maguire
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chrishanthi Rajasooriyar ◽  
Jenny Kelly ◽  
Thanikai Sivakumar ◽  
Gowcikan Navanesan ◽  
Shahini Nadarasa ◽  
...  

Purpose The discussion of a cancer diagnosis and prognosis often is difficult. This study explored the expectations of Tamil-speaking patients with cancer and their families with respect to receiving their cancer diagnosis in northern Sri Lanka. Methods This exploratory, descriptive, qualitative study used semistructured interviews. Results Thematic analysis identified two major themes: communication and information seeking. The findings illustrate a discrepancy between patient preference for direct disclosure of the diagnosis and that of families. Ninety-five percent of patients wanted medical staff to disclose their cancer diagnosis, whereas only 45% of family members believed that the diagnosis should be disclosed to the patient rather than to the family. Conclusion Although patients and their family members’ views and expectations of the disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis differ, a majority of patients want to be told directly about their diagnosis rather than to learn of it from a relative. The findings are similar to the literature on other ethnic groups from Sri Lanka and studies from English-speaking developed countries. Therefore, the main questions are how to educate families and physicians about the benefits of open disclosure to patients and how to change culture. Results of this study along with a previous study call for the development of strategies and guidelines to improve societal views, educate patients and families, and train health professionals in the area of breaking bad news and discussing prognosis in the Sri Lankan setting.


2014 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Gabriel Bain ◽  
Cheah Whye Lian ◽  
Chang Ching Thon

Abstract Context: Breaking of bad news is an important component in the management of cancer patients. Aims: This study aimed to assess the perceptions of breaking bad news of cancer diagnosis. Settings and Design: It was a cross-sectional study using Breaking Bad News Assessment Schedule (BAS) questionnaire on cancer patients in Serian district. Materials and Methods: Using snowballing sampling method, a total of 134 patients were interviewed face-to-face after the consent was obtained from each of the respondents. Statistical Analysis Used: Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS version 19.0. Results: Majority were comfortable with the current method of breaking bad news. The main aspects found to be the areas of concern were the importance of the usage of body language, management of time and identifying patients′ key area of concerns. There were significant difference between sex and "information giving" (P = 0.028) and "general consideration" (P = 0.016) and also between "the age and setting the scene" (P = 0.042). Significant difference was also found between the types of cancer and "the setting of scene" (P = 0.018), "breaking bad news technique" (P = 0.010), "eliciting concerns" (P = 0.003) and "information giving" (P = 0.004). Conclusion: Good and effective communication skill of breaking bad news is vital in the management of cancer patients. As the incidence of new cases of cancer increase every year, breaking of bad news has become a pertinent to the medical professionals′ role. Specific aspects of communication skills based on local characteristics should be more emphasized in the formulation of training for doctors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Touqan ◽  
Nabila Nasir ◽  
Kate Williams ◽  
Maria Bramley ◽  
M Shamim Absar

Abstract Aim Virtual consultations (VC) in Breast Surgery have become well-established during the COVID pandemic. They are successfully utilised in routine follow ups and low-risk new referrals. We aimed to assess the utility of VC in more complex clinical discussions. Methods We collected feedback anonymously via electronic link from 20 consecutive patients who specifically had more challenging video-VC including: 12 diagnostic MDT results (10 patients received bad news of new cancer diagnosis, 2 had benign results); 6 post-operative wound checks with therapeutic MDT outcomes; 2 new consultations for chest wall reconstruction. Results The time saved by patients was between 1 and 3 hours (median=2). All patients felt that booking and joining a VC was either very easy (12) or easy (8). 18 patients were satisfied with the quality of sound and picture and all 18 felt they were able to communicate everything to the clinician during their VCs. Compared to a face-to-face consultation, 14 patients felt that VC was better (70%), 4 felt it was similar (20%) and 2 thought it was worse (10%). Most received comments were themed around VC had allowed patients to get their results, discuss their management plans and ask questions while they were safely at home with other family members, at times when COVID restrictions applied to outpatient clinical settings. Conclusion VC may be utilised selectively to provide complex consultations including discussing results, breaking bad news and wound inspections. Qualitative studies in this field can be beneficial.


2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 2049-2056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Parker ◽  
Walter F. Baile ◽  
Carl de Moor ◽  
Renato Lenzi ◽  
Andrzej P. Kudelka ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess patients’ preferences regarding the way in which physicians deliver news about their cancer diagnosis and management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A sample of 351 patients with a variety of cancers completed a measure assessing their preferences for how they would like to be told news about their cancer. Patients rated characteristics of the context and content of the conversation as well as physician characteristics. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated that patients’ preferences for how they would like to be told news regarding their cancer can be grouped into the following three categories: (1) content (what and how much information is told); (2) facilitation (setting and context variables); and (3) support (emotional support during the interaction). Women (P = .02) and patients with higher education (P = .05) had significantly higher scores on the Content scale, women (P = .02) had higher scores on the Support scale, and younger patients (P = .001) and those with more education (P = .02) had higher scores on the Message Facilitation scale. Medical variables were not associated with patients’ ratings of the importance of the three subscales. CONCLUSION: Patients rated items addressing the message content as most important, though the supportive and facilitative dimensions were also rated highly. Understanding what is important to patients when told news about their cancer provides valuable information that may help refine how this challenging task is best performed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
MOHAMMAD ABOSOUDAH ◽  
Balaji Duraisamy

Abstract Aim:To study the differences in attitude and perceptions of patients versus family members with regards to breaking bad news and full disclosure of prognosis to the patients in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Methods:A survey of patients and their family members was conducted in the oncology outpatient clinics using a structured questionnaire. Based on the existing prevalence of patients who wanted full disclosure, the sample size was calculated to be 143. Demographic details, diagnostic details were collected in addition to responses to questions exploring attitudes towards breaking bad news. A total of 149 patients and family members were interviewed separately. Results:A total of 149 patients and their family members consented to be interviewed. However, only valid responses to each question were analyzed. Overall, 75.2% (109/145) of patients felt that patient should be informed first as compared to 72.9% (102/140) of family members who felt the family should be informed of the bad news first. 24.3% (34) of family caregivers agreed that patients have the right to full disclosure. Both patients and family caregivers were reluctant to know details about the code status. 71.4% (95) of family caregivers and 54.3% (75) of the patients did not want the health care team to discuss details of code status and DNR. Both patients (87.1%) and caregivers (74.3%) agreed that the primary physician is the best person to break the bad news. Family members may be emotionally more affected than patients. They might require as much if not more support as the patients themselves during breaking bad news.Conclusions:There are significant differences between patient and family members regarding full disclosure of diagnosis and prognosis especially, end-of-life issues like DNR and place of death. The most stressful time for the patient was waiting for confirmatory test results. Therefore, breaking bad news support services should systematically begin even before diagnostic investigations begin. Our study points out that the majority of patients want to know the full details of diagnosis and prognosis. Discussion regarding code status has to be more structured in a way that the patient and family do not feel abandoned due to the Do Not Resuscitate status. Further study is needed to study the need and efficacy of a breaking bad news system in the hospital.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110001
Author(s):  
Babbin S John ◽  
Joshila Bhudoye ◽  
Mark F Lynch

Breaking bad news is challenging in most circumstances, and informing a patient that they have a cancer diagnosis more so. Therefore, most patients have a face-to-face meeting with their doctor to get their cancer diagnosis with many advantages to this method. The SARS-Covid pandemic has forced cancer specialists to change their approach to giving cancer news and telemedicine is being utilised more than ever before. We describe the satisfaction outcomes of a series of patients who were given their cancer diagnosis by telephone during the pandemic. Our evaluation shows that cancer diagnosis can be safely given over the telephone and moreover the results can be used to design a bespoke cancer clinic of the future. Level of evidence: 4


Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev

Communication is fundamental to the role of the doctor. It includes routine verbal communication (e.g. history taking, updating relatives, handovers, and requesting investigations from specialists), written communication (e.g. prescriptions, updating the clinical notes, and discharge summaries), breaking bad news, and ‘challenging’ interactions such as dealing with an angry relative. Questions within this section assess your ability to communicate effectively with patients and colleagues. Effective communication requires understanding and being understood. You will need to demonstrate an ability to negotiate with colleagues, to document information within the medical notes clearly and concisely, to gather information from patients, and to listen to angry relatives. As always, your responses must adapt to the needs and context of each situation, while always remembering to demonstrate empathy and compassion. ● Listen to patients, relatives, and colleagues. They are trying to tell you something. ● Explain your position carefully after listening to the other side. ● Adapt your style as far as possible to the person with whom you are communicating. ● However strongly you feel, poor manners will never get the job done faster. Foundation doctors should not usually be left to ‘break bad news’ in the classical sense of a new cancer diagnosis in clinic. However, bad news can take many forms and it is likely that you will find yourself going through the ‘breaking bad news’ sequence many times during the foundation programme. For example, the following scenarios are all bad news to varying degrees. Some patients will take such developments in their stride and others will rank them amongst other significant life events. ● An incidental ‘nodule’ found on a CT chest that might be benign but will require a follow- up scan in three months. ● An elderly man who has become very unwell and is unlikely to survive while you are on call. You have been assigned the task of calling his wife, providing an update, and suggesting she come to the hospital urgently. ● The fact that investigations have all been normal and they are being discharged without a diagnosis for their persistent debilitating abdominal pain.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 943-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane A. McElroy ◽  
Christine M. Proulx ◽  
LaShaune Johnson ◽  
Katie M. Heiden-Rootes ◽  
Emily L. Albright ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1779-1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abha Rao ◽  
Bhuvana Sunil ◽  
Maria Ekstrand ◽  
Elsa Heylen ◽  
Girish Raju ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document