COVID-19: Fear, quackery, false representations and the law.

Fear, anxiety and even paranoia can proliferate during a pandemic. Such conditions, even when subclinical, tend to be a product of personal and predispositional factors, as well as shared cultural influences, including religious, literary, film, and gaming, all of which can lead to emotional and less than rational responses. They can render people vulnerable to engage in implausible conspiracy theories about the causes of illness and governmental responses to it. They can also lead people to give credence to simplistic and unscientific misrepresentations about medications and devices which are claimed to prevent, treat or cure disease. In turn such vulnerability creates predatory opportunities for the unscrupulous. This article notes the eruption of quackery during the 1889-1892 Russian Flu and the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu and the emergence during 2020 of spurious claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. It identifies consumer protection strategies and interventions formulated during the 2020 pandemic. Using examples from the United States, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom, it argues that during a pandemic there is a need for three responses by government to the risks posed by conspiracy theories and false representations: calm, scientifically-based messaging from public health authorities; cease and desist warnings directed toward those making extravagant or inappropriate claims; and the taking of assertive and well publicised legal action against individuals and entities that make false representations in order to protect consumers rendered vulnerable by their emotional responses to the phenomenology of the pandemic.

Breaking Bad News: Integrating the Spikes Model into Medical School Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Breaking bad news to patients is a daunting yet inevitable task for most physicians. When done poorly, physicians can cause further pain to the patients while creating great distress for themselves; therefore, it is important medical students learn effective and compassionate techniques. The SPIKES model was created as a guiding framework for providers to use when breaking bad news. The objective of this project was to create a sustainable method to integrate use of the SPIKES model for giving bad news to patients into the curriculum for the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine (SSOM). METHODS: The changes to the curriculum occurred in three phases - one for each Pillar of the University of South Dakota SSOM's curriculum. The first session was a lecture format introducing and defining the SPIKES model for the first-year students. The second lesson was both didactic and interactive, as students were able to practice the SPIKES model through role-playing with colleagues. Prior to COVID, the final lesson was planned to be a standardized patient encounter for the graduating students; however, this lesson ended up in a virtual lecture format. A pre- and post-survey was given for each lesson to determine the usefulness of the SPIKES model in preparing students for handling these challenging conversations. RESULTS: 197 students completed the pre-test survey, and 157 students completed the post-test survey. Overall, a statistically significant improvement was found in students' self-reported confidence, preparedness, and comfort. When the data was broken down based upon year of training, not all cohorts had statistically significant improvement in all three categories. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIKES model serves as a good framework for students to use and tailor to the specific patient encounters. It was evident these lessons greatly improved the student's confidence, comfort, and plan of action. The next step would be to study whether improvement is noted from a patient's perspective and what mode of instruction was most effective.

Breaking Bad News During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The aim of the present review was to extend research by reviewing international research regarding the communication between oncologists and oncology patients and the communication of bad news to oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the PRISMA guidelines a review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE bibliographic databases from inception to October 10, 2022. The search was limited to articles written in English. Two reviewers independently completed title and abstract, full-text screening, and data extraction. A total of five studies were deemed eligible for this systematic review. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Of these five articles, three referred to the communication of bad news to patients by medical oncologists during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the remaining two referred to the transmission of bad news to patients by surgeons during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic and the social distancing measures imposed caused radical changes in the forms of communication in medical environments. The challenges faced by the oncologist in breaking bad news to cancer patients are highlighted in this systematic review, and the need for physician preparation prior to communication with the patient is emphasized. Overall, new studies are needed on the effects of distance communication on both health professionals and patients. New studies are also needed that would explore the perceptions of physicians and patients in Greece.

Breaking Bad News via Telehealth: Simulation Training for Nurse Practitioner Students.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrated educators must consider students' future practice will involve patient communication via telehealth, including breaking bad news. METHOD: This mixed-methods analysis was conducted among 33 nurse practitioner (NP) students at two universities. Questionnaires were analyzed before and after a simulation training session with standardized patients to determine students' perceptions, learning satisfaction, confidence, and self-rated preparedness for delivering bad news via telehealth. RESULTS: Students' self-rated levels of preparedness for delivering bad news were higher after participating in the simulation. Students found the teaching methods to be effective, enjoyable, motivating, and suitable to individual learning styles. Two themes emerged that described students' perceptions of the experience: valuable simulation processes and multifaceted learning applicable to future NP practice. CONCLUSION: Breaking bad news via virtual platforms is new and challenging. Findings suggest this simulation experience provided a valuable tool for augmenting didactic training for NP students. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(9):528-532.].

From chaos to creativity: Designing collaborative communication training for the delivery of bad news.

BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, teaching communication skills in health care focused primarily on developing skills during face-to-face conversation. Even experienced clinicians were unprepared for the transition in communication modalities necessitated due to physical distancing requirements and visitation restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to develop and pilot a comprehensive video-mediated communication training program and test its feasibility in multiple institutional settings and medical disciplines. METHODS: The education team, consisting of clinician-educators in general surgery and emergency medicine (EM) and faculty specialists in simulation and coaching, created the intervention. Surgery and EM interns in addition to senior medical students applying in these specialties were recruited to participate. Three 90-minute sessions were offered focusing on 3 communication topics that became increasingly complex and challenging: breaking bad news, goals of care discussions, and disclosure of medical error. This was a mixed-methods study using survey and narrative analysis of open comment fields. RESULTS: Learner recruitment varied by institution but was successful, and most (75%) learners found the experience to be valuable. All of the participants reported feeling able to lead difficult discussions, either independently or with minimal assistance. Only about half (52%) of the participants reported feeling confident to independently disclose medical error subsequent to the session. CONCLUSION: We found the program to be feasible based on acceptability, demand, the ability to implement, and practicality. Of the 3 communication topics studied, confidence with disclosure of medical error proved to be the most difficult. The optimal length and structure for these programs warrants further investigation.

Breaking Bad News During COVID-19 Time in Surgical, Emergency and Medical Specialties - What More we Need to Develop?

Background: Breaking bad news is one of the complex communication skills essential to the practice of every clinician. It involves not only the mere provision of information, but also how to deal with the emotions of the patients and the response of their relatives. Therefore, certain protocols are employed for this process, including "BREAKS", "SPIKES", and "ABCDE" protocols. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic mandated the use of strict infection control measures including social distancing, requiring the utilization of telecommunication technologies for breaking bad news. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the use on non-physical methods in breaking bad news by physicians and to evaluate the need for more development and training. Methods: Cross-sectional survey conducted in Kufa Medical College Al-Najaf during April - June 2021, and included 60 physicians of various specialties working in that hospital. Results: Majority of participants 88.3% reported breaking bad news regularly. Less than half of participants 46.7% received training on breaking bad news, and only 13.3% received training on non-physical breaking bad news. More than half of participants mentioned that showing empathy is the area that needs improvement the most. Conclusion: High proportion of physicians lacks the necessary skills to break bad news, especially using non-physical ways during the pandemic. Well-structured programs are needed for the training of healthcare providers on breaking bad news, with certain adaptations for traditional protocols to be appropriate for telephone or video conferencing.

Teaching how to break bad news in Oncology: In-class vs. virtual peer role-plays.

BACKGROUND: We report two different peer role-play training courses for breaking bad news (BBN) in Oncology, the classic "in-class" model and the "virtual" peer role-play (VPRP) model developed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: Each session included 20-25 4th year medical students supervised by two practitioners experienced in oncology. After an ice breaking activity to exchange with students on means to promote hope to patients when BBN, peer role-plays started. Pre-and post-session questionnaires were submitted to evaluate students' satisfaction, attitudes, and perceptions. Pre-and post-session knowledge test were realized. Each student has participated to only one peer-role play either "in-class" (2018) or VPRP (2020). RESULTS: In 2018, a total of 222 students received the "in-class" training. In 2020, a total 431 students received the VPRP training. For almost all students it was the first peer role-play training session. Before training, reported level of confidence in BBN was low. After training, students of the VPRP group were highly satisfied regarding quality (realism, organization). Students also reported great interest and perceived benefits. Students who underwent "in-class" training course showed a significantly higher improvement (+1.9 points) of their knowledge scores compared to those who underwent the VPRP training course (+0.7 points) (P-value=2e-16). CONCLUSION: The two methods seem beneficial to improve knowledge skills in BBN although "in-class" training class seem to be more efficient. To our knowledge, this is the first comparison between virtual and in-class peer-role play training for BBN in oncology.

Communicating bad news of COVID-19: An empirical study of patients' preferences in India.

The study aims to assess patients' preferences regarding physicians communicating bad news of COVID-19. Based on the data collected from 74 patients with COVID-19 in India, this study assesses "how" patients want bad news to be delivered. Key aspects of the physician-patient interaction were identified from the literature. Regression tests proved that three main constructs contribute significantly toward patient outcomes. Content of the message and facilitation were most crucial, however too much emotional support was not desirable by patients. Also, the patient's gender and educational background should be considered before breaking bad news . Thus, to increase patient compliance full disclosure and patient-centered methods of communication can be used.

Breaking bad news to patients in the emergency department.

Breaking the news of potentially serious and new diagnoses to patients in the emergency department (ED) is a common but challenging aspect of the autonomous practitioner's role. It is a complex process, requiring expertise and skill. If the news is delivered appropriately there is evidence to suggest a beneficial effect on the patient's ability to cope, yet there is little formal training available and literature focused on the ED setting is limited. This article aims to guide and prepare autonomous practitioners in the ED to break bad news to patients, including during remote consultations introduced due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. It identifies the importance of preparation; different approaches to breaking bad news, namely the six-stage SPIKES framework and a case study exploring its application in practice; the range of potential patient reactions and how these can be managed, including the provision of support; and how to involve and communicate with other members of the multidisciplinary team. Suggestions for further training are outlined.

Analysis of the reliability of patient COVID-19 screening data compared against their actual test data.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the truthfulness of patients about their pre-appointment COVID-19 screening tests at a dental clinic. METHODS: A total of 613 patients were recruited for the study from the dental clinic at the Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University, Saudi Arabia. The data collection was done in three parts from the patients who visited the hospital to receive dental treatment. The first part included the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients and the COVID-19 swab tests performed within the past 14 days. The second part was the clinical examination, and the third part was a confirmation of the swab test taken by the patient by checking the Hesen website using the patient ID. After data collection, statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 26.0. Descriptive analysis was done and expressed as mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage (%). A cross-tabulation, also described as a contingency table, was used to identify trends and patterns across data and explain the correlation between different variables. RESULTS: It was seen from the status of the swab test within 14 days of the patient's arrival at the hospital for the dental treatment that 18 (2.9%) patients lied about the pre-treatment swab test within 14 days, and 595 (97.1%) were truthful. The observed and expected counts showed across genders and diagnosis a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference seen across different age groups (p = 0.064) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dental healthcare workers are worried and assume a high risk of COVID-19 infection as the patients are not truthful about the pre-treatment COVID-19 swab test. Routine rapid tests on patients and the healthcare staff are a feasible option for lowering overall risks.

An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk.

Recent statistics show that almost 1/4 of a million people have died and four million people are affected either with mild or serious health problems caused by coronavirus (COVID-19). These numbers are rapidly increasing (World Health Organization, May 3, 2020c). There is much concern during this pandemic about the spread of misleading or inaccurate information. This article reports on a small study which attempted to identify the types and sources of COVID-19 misinformation. The authors identified and analysed 1225 pieces of COVID-19 fake news stories taken from fact-checkers, myth-busters and COVID-19 dashboards. The study is significant given the concern raised by the WHO Director-General that 'we are not just fighting the pandemic, we are also fighting infodemic'. The study concludes that the COVID-19 infodemic is full of false claims, half backed conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific therapies, regarding the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, origin and spread of the virus. Fake news is pervasive in social media, putting public health at risk. The scale of the crisis and ubiquity of the misleading information require that scientists, health information professionals and journalists exercise their professional responsibility to help the general public identify fake news stories. They should ensure that accurate information is published and disseminated.J.M.

Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust.

During the rapid development and rolling out of vaccines against COVID-19, researchers have called for an approach of "radical transparency," in which vaccine information is transparently disclosed to the public, even if negative information can decrease vaccine uptake. Consistent with theories about the psychology of conspiracy beliefs, these calls predict that a lack of transparency may reduce trust in health authorities and may facilitate the spread of conspiracy theories, which may limit the long-term capabilities of health authorities during and after the pandemic. On the basis of preregistered experiments conducted on large, representative samples of Americans and Danes (N > 13,000), the current study contrasts the effects of vague vaccine communication with transparent communication, which discloses either positive or negative vaccine features. The evidence demonstrates that transparent negative communication may indeed harm vaccine acceptance here and now but that it increases trust in health authorities. Furthermore, the alternative of vague, reassuring communication does not increase vaccine acceptance either and leads to both lower trust and higher endorsement of conspiracy theories.

How Accurate Are Accuracy-Nudge Interventions? A Preregistered Direct Replication of Pennycook et al. (2020).

As part of the Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program, the present study consisted of a two-stage replication test of a central finding by Pennycook et al. (2020), namely that asking people to think about the accuracy of a single headline improves "truth discernment" of intentions to share news headlines about COVID-19. The first stage of the replication test (n = 701) was unsuccessful (p = .67). After collecting a second round of data (additional n = 882, pooled N = 1,583), we found a small but significant interaction between treatment condition and truth discernment (uncorrected p = .017; treatment: d = 0.14, control: d = 0.10). As in the target study, perceived headline accuracy correlated with treatment impact, so that treatment-group participants were less willing to share headlines that were perceived as less accurate. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and an unreported change in the hypothesis (but not the analysis plan) from the preregistration in the original study.