The kitchen assessment: an interactional analysis of assessment and feedback between an occupational therapist and a patient with aphasia post stroke.

PURPOSE: After stroke, patients undergo frequent multidisciplinary assessments. Little is known about patients' experiences of being assessed and the impact of assessment interactions and feedback for ongoing engagement in rehabilitation. This research aims to stimulate reflection on clinical interactions, even during routine clinical assessments, and the provision of assessment feedback. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study involved a detailed analysis of an authentic kitchen assessment interaction between an occupational therapist and a patient with aphasia following stroke. It used a speech function analysis based on systemic functional linguistics resulting in both dynamic and synoptic data, and a consideration of interactive framing, to explore assessment explanation and feedback. RESULTS: The analysis revealed the clinician's interactive dominance in terms of number and type of moves, and misalignment of interactional framing at different points in the exchange. The session appeared to result in patient disengagement related both to the clinician's misjudged response to the patient's aphasia, and the context of assessment itself, characterised by reliance on question-and-answer exchanges, and a tendency to highlight deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment sessions may be emotionally challenging for patients after stroke and feedback may be interpreted as bad news. Sensitive communication is required to support psychological wellbeing and engagement in rehabilitation.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAfter stroke, patients are assessed by the multidisciplinary team to inform intervention and discharge planning.Little is known about the feedback patients receive or their views of this feedback, including when it is perceived as bad news.The presence of aphasia can complicate how assessments are conducted and how feedback is delivered and received.Greater awareness is needed of how feedback following assessment might impact patients' psychological wellbeing and engagement in rehabilitation.

Oral cancer diagnosis communication: Impact of an educational intervention using the SPIKES protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the influence of a single educational intervention on the perception and knowledge of strategies for communicating oral cancer diagnoses. METHODS: A educational intervention, 72 dentists and 41 dental undergraduates participated in the 'Maio Vermelho Project', a continuing education activity. Participants completed a 14-question online questionnaire concerning their experiences and perceptions of delivering difficult news. The educational intervention featured an interview illustrating the SPIKES protocol, broadcast on YouTube. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 40 years. A minority (21.2%) had encountered or experienced communicating an oral cancer diagnosis. Exposure to lectures on this topic during their education was uncommon (22.1%) but more prevalent among students. After the intervention, confidence in communicating a cancer diagnosis (29.2%) and addressing the patient's family (30.1%) in line with the SPIKES protocol increased. CONCLUSION: A training deficit persists in delivering cancer diagnoses, highlighting the need for educational interventions to empower students and professionals in this critical procedure. Integration of this topic into the dental undergraduate curriculum is imperative. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Effectively communicating a cancer diagnosis poses challenges to healthcare professionals, impacting treatment outcomes. Implementing educational interventions ensures that professionals are well prepared to navigate this complex task, ultimately improving patient care.

The experiences of Indonesian parents receiving bad news about their children's diseases: A qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Breaking bad news about children's chronic diseases is challenging and is often not performed according to the needs of parents. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of Indonesian parents receiving bad news about their chronically ill child. DESIGN AND METHOD: This is a qualitative descriptive study that used semi-structured interviews. Twenty one parents who met the inclusion criteria were face-to-face interviewed between August 2021 and September 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed using content analysis. The trustworthiness of the study was established through member checking, triangulation, and detailed transcriptions. The COREQ checklist was followed in this study. FINDINGS: Findings revealed four categories: 1) reactions when receiving bad news; 2) expectations while receiving bad news; 3) conflicting feelings and situations; and 4) perceived roles of nurses in delivering the news. CONCLUSION: Parents reacted in different ways when receiving bad news about their children's disease, mostly experiencing negative thoughts and being unable to bear the news. Despite those reactions, parents highlighted their right to receive the news with an understandable explanation through the roles of nurses as educators, advocates, and empathizers. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Nurses are encouraged to strengthen their roles in breaking bad news. Nurses and healthcare professionals are also suggested to use understandable language and explain medical terms that are used in delivering the information to parents.

Breaking bad news: A mix methods study reporting the need for improving communication skills among doctors in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Effective skills and training for physicians are essential for communicating difficult or distressing information, also known as breaking bad news (BBN). This study aimed to assess both the capacity and the practices of clinicians in Pakistan regarding BBN. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 151 clinicians. Quantitative component used a structured questionnaire, while qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with 13 medical educationists. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: While most clinicians acknowledged their responsibility of delivering difficult news, only a small percentage had received formal training in BBN. Areas for improvement include time and interruption management, rapport building, and understanding the patients' point of view. Prognosis and treatment options were not consistently discussed. Limited importance is given to BBN in medical education. DISCUSSION: Training in BBN will lead to improved patient and attendants' satisfaction, and empathetic support during difficult times.

Breaking Bad News During Prenatal Screening: The Role of Professional Obstetricians and Midwives in Greece.

INTRODUCTION: Breaking bad news is one of the most difficult responsibilities in medical practice. Although medical staff in clinical practice often encounter situations that necessitate the announcement of unpleasant news, there is a lack of training regarding their communication with patients and their families. Effective interaction between medical staff and pregnant women constitutes a crucial component of breaking down unpleasant news. This research aimed to investigate the knowledge and attitude of health professionals, particularly obstetricians, and midwives, regarding the announcement of bad news during prenatal screening. METHODS: The study was conducted between September 2017 and April 2018. One hundred professional obstetricians and midwives involved in fetal and prenatal medicine in Greece were part of the study. The study consisted of two parts: the first covered the emotional state of healthcare professionals during the announcement of unpleasant news, and the second covered the appropriate way to inform unpleasant results during prenatal testing. RESULTS: In this study, only 41% of the participants considered that they felt comfortable discussing issues related to the diagnosis of an unpleasant result during prenatal testing with the pregnant woman/patient, or her relatives, and 85% accepted that they had experienced feelings of sadness, anxiety, or guilt when announcing unpleasant results. Furthermore, 87% of the participants believed that the non-verbal communication component (eye contact, body language) plays an important role in breaking bad news. Finally, 65% considered that prolonged monitoring of the ultrasound screen during prenatal screening does not increase the anxiety of pregnant women when carried out for a better medical opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering bad news during prenatal screening creates stress for the parents. As far as the ethical, cultural, psychological, and legal complicity of healthcare professionals is concerned, communicating unpleasant news has been a subject of discussion by many experts. It is important to understand the concerns of women regarding the risks of counseling.

Development of an integrated milestone assessment tool across multiple early-adopter programs for breaking bad news: a pilot project.

BACKGROUND: The transition of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to milestone assessment creates opportunities for collaboration and shared assessments across graduate medical programs. Breaking bad news is an essential communication skill that is a common milestone across almost every medical specialty. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot an integrated milestone assessment (IMA) tool for breaking bad news using ACGME milestone criteria and to compare the IMA tool with the existing SPIKES protocol. METHODS: The IMA tool was created using sub-anchors in professionalism and interpersonal communication skills that are applicable to every specialty and to the ability to break bad news. Two cases of breaking bad news, designed to be "easy" and "intermediate" in difficulty, were used to assess basic skills in breaking bad news in first-year medical residents from six residency specialties. Eight standardized patients were trained to portray the cases in sessions held in November 2013 and May 2014. Standardized patients completed an assessment checklist to evaluate each resident's performance in breaking bad news based on their use of the SPIKES protocol and IMA tool. Residents answered post-encounter questions about their training and comfort in breaking bad news. The association between SPIKES and IMA scores was investigated by simple linear regression models and Spearman rank correlations. RESULTS: There were 136 eligible medical residents: 108 (79.4%) participated in the first session and 97 (71.3%) participated in the second session, with 96 (70.6%) residents participating in both sessions. Overall, we were able to identify residents that performed at both extremes of the assessment criteria using the integrated milestone assessment (IMA) and the SPIKES protocol. Interestingly, residents rated themselves below "comfortable" on average. CONCLUSION: We developed an integrated milestone assessment (IMA) that was better than the SPIKES protocol at assessing the skill of breaking bad news. This collaborative assessment tool can be used as supplement tool in the era of milestone transformation. We aim assess our tool in other specialties and institutions, as well as assess other shared milestones across specialties.

EMBRACE (Empowering Medical students' skills in BReaking bAd news with Compassion and Empathy) module improves the skills of undergraduate medical students in effectively breaking the bad news: a case-control study.

Effective communication skills are pivotal in health care, particularly when conveying distressing information to patients and their families. However, medical education still lacks the adoption of a universal model that can be incorporated into the curricula to train and assess students in effectively communicating with patients. This study aims to assess the impact of training undergraduate medical students to deliver bad news effectively using the Empowering Medical students' skills in BReaking bAd news with Compassion and Empathy (EMBRACE) module. This randomized case-control study involved medical students from the first, second, and third professional years (study group, n = 75; control group, n = 75). For the study group, the EMBRACE modules were distributed. Then, a 1-hour training session on effectively delivering bad news was followed by a multiple-choice question test and objective structured clinical examination with response, interpretation, and communication skills stations. Participants' feedback was obtained on a five-point Likert scale. There was a highly significant improvement in knowledge and skills among the study group compared to controls with a P value less than 0.0001. Of the participants, 98.76% perceived that the training equipped them with practical skills, and 98.77% felt that the facilitator had demonstrated the steps of delivering bad news clearly and effectively. Only 4.44% of participants were confident in effectively interacting with patients before the session, and an overwhelming 81.11% gained confidence in their communication skills after the training. With demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge and skills, this study supports the adoption of EMBRACE modules in undergraduate medical education, ultimately improving patient experiences, doctor-patient relationships, and health outcomes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The Empowering Medical students' skills in BReaking bAd news with Compassion and Empathy (EMBRACE) module is noteworthy for its holistic approach to training medical students in the delicate art of delivering distressing news to patients. It not only incorporates the evidence-based setting, perception, invitation, knowledge, emotions, and strategy (SPIKES) method but also distinguishes itself by providing real-life conversation examples and self-assessment cases, which make the training highly relatable and practical for students to actively engage in their learning and personal development.

Difficulties experienced by dentists and orthodontists regarding ethical issues when announcing the diagnosis of a rare oral disease: a qualitative study in Marseille, France.

PURPOSE: It is traditionally considered that breaking bad news to patients does not represent a cause for concern for dental professionals. However, there are situations where they will be confronted with this task, as in the case of rare dental diseases. Little information is available regarding the feelings of healthcare professionals on this subject. There are no qualitative studies that explore how a diagnosis of oligodontia is announced to patients by dentists and orthodontists. The aim of our study is to explore the difficulties and ethical issues experienced by dental health professionals when they have to announce a diagnosis of oligodontia to a patient and their family. METHODS: This study relied on a qualitative research method using focus groups of dentists and orthodontists and a thematic analysis procedure. RESULTS: The difficulties experienced could be summarised within five topics: organisational difficulties, difficulties with the management of dental treatment and with the administrative management associated with this anomaly, difficulties with the content of the announcement, and relational difficulties. These could be grouped in two categories: practical difficulties and ethical difficulties. CONCLUSION: This survey allowed us to understand the difficulties encountered by dentists and orthodontists when announcing oligodontia. The participants felt uncomfortable with this task and were under stress. They reported difficulties in delivering the medical information and in adapting to the message. It is essential that dental professionals develop skills in medical communication.

Rethinking parameters of "success" in breaking bad news conversations from patient's perspective: the successful delivery process model.

PURPOSE: Studies that focus on improving the difficult process of breaking bad news in oncology should include the patient perspective and be guided by appropriate outcome measures. Endpoints such as "patient satisfaction" fall short to capture the complex nature of breaking bad news (BBN) conversations. However, this is true of many studies. The present study attempts to develop a framework model from a new, patient-centered perspective, which can be applied equally in clinical practice and in education. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with twelve cancer patients were conducted. Transcripts were analyzed by "qualitative content analysis" following Mayring. Outcomes were further extrapolated in interpretational steps, and a model of "success" from patients view in BBN was developed. RESULTS: Two central needs of the patients could be identified: understanding and feelings. Their fulfillment depends on two groups of variables: first, structural characteristics, such as the inevitable shock, individuality, and processability; second, strongly influenceable variables, such as relationship, transfer of knowledge, and atmosphere. From these results, a framework model for successful breaking of bad news from the patient's perspective was developed: The successful delivery process model (SDP model). CONCLUSION: As a basic model for the framework for breaking bad news from the patient's perspective, the SDP model can be applied to many different situations in oncology and help to frame the difficult conversations by tailoring the BBN conversations on determinants that favorably influence the process in a patient centered manner. In this sense, the model can be useful in clinical practice as well as in education.

Teaching breaking bad news in a gyneco-oncological setting: a feasibility study implementing the SPIKES framework for undergraduate medical students.

BACKGROUND: It is a crucial task for physicians to deliver life threatening information to patients (breaking bad news; BBN). Many aspects influence these conversations on both sides, patients, and doctors. BBN affects the patient-physician relationship, patients' outcome, and physicians' health. Many physicians are still untrained for this multi-facetted task and feel unprepared and overburdened when facing situations of BBN. Therefore, any faculties should aim to integrate communication skills into their medical curricula as early as possible. The SPIKES protocol is an effective framework to deliver BBN. Aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and obstacles of a BBN seminar and its acceptance and learning curve among undergraduate medical students. METHODS: 158 2nd year undergraduate medical students attended a compulsory BBN seminar. The task was to deliver a cancer diagnosis to the patient within a patient - physician role-play in a gyneco-oncological setting before and after a presentation of the SPIKES protocol by the lecturer. The students evaluated important communication skills during these role-plays respectively. Self-assessment questionnaires were obtained at the beginning and end of the seminar. RESULTS: Most students indicated that their confidence in BBN improved after the seminar (p < 0.001). They like the topic BBN to be part of lectures (76%) and electives (90%). Communication skills improved. Lecturer and seminar were positively evaluated (4.57/5). CONCLUSION: The seminar significantly increased confidence and self-awareness in delivering life-threatening news to patients among undergraduate medical students. Important learning aspects of BBN and communication skills could be delivered successfully to the participants within a short time at low costs. The integration of communication skills should be implemented longitudinally into medical curricula starting before clinical education to increase the awareness of the importance of communication skills, to decrease anxiety, stress, and workload for future doctors and- most importantly- to the benefit of our patients.

Communicating difficult news in pediatric radiology.

Effective communication is an important aspect of providing quality healthcare. Radiology staff may be called upon to communicate results, even when it is difficult. Simple, efficient communication models can be learned to reduce clinician distress and support patients and families through stressful times. These practical tips ensure essential communication elements are met, including assessing patient and family perspectives, clearly delivering medical information, responding with empathy, and collaborating around next steps. Models such as "Ask-Tell-Ask," "SPIKES," and "NURSE" can be used to disclose results, communicate serious news, and respond to emotion. Lastly, clinicians can also utilize "I wish… I worry… I wonder" statements to align with a patient's hopes and acknowledge a family's concerns, ultimately allowing healthcare professionals to support and guide families through challenging situations.

Breaking Bad News in Breast Imaging: Keys to Success.

The radiologist's ability to effectively communicate with patients is crucial in breast imaging. Having to tell a patient that she or he requires a biopsy procedure or has a new diagnosis of breast cancer is both a challenging task and a daily reality for many practicing breast radiologists. Despite this, communication in breast imaging is often not formally taught in most training programs, leading many breast radiologists to obtain their skills through on-the-job experience. We discuss the importance of effective communication with patients and a breast imaging-specific method for delivering bad news, adapted from approaches used in medical oncology. A conversation "script" or guide is provided along with the rationale for how to best handle these difficult conversations. Lastly, we review how to teach effective communication to those in training using our breast imaging fellowship program and recent survey results as an example.

The influence of "bad news" and "neutral/good news" on patients' perception of physician empathy during oncology consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Being met with empathy increases information sharing, treatment coherence, and helps patients to recover faster. However, we do not know how the content of the conversation about disease progression, new treatments, or other issues concerning serious illness affects patients' perceptions of the physician's empathy, and thus, the quality of the conversation. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that patients will rate their physician lower following a "bad news" consultation using the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. METHODS: A total of 186 outpatients from the Department of Oncology were recruited for this study. After meeting with a patient, the physician filled out a form, placing the patient in either the "bad news" group, or the "neutral/good news" group along with information about the patient and the consultation. The patient was given the CARE measure after the visit. RESULTS: The patients who had received bad news rated their physicians a significantly lower score on the CARE measure, even though the effect size was small, than those who had neutral/good news. On average, bad news consultations were 11 min longer. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians need to be aware of the patients' need to be known and understood, in addition to having skills to attend to emotional cues and concerns, since the current study's finding could be a sign either of the content being projected onto the physician or that the physician is focused on the message rather than on the patient.

What is bad news in fertility care? A qualitative analysis of staff and patients' accounts of bad and challenging news in fertility care.

STUDY QUESTION: What do fertility staff and patients think is bad news in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Staff and patients agree bad news is any news that makes patients less likely to achieve parenthood spontaneously or access and do successful treatment, but their appraisals of how bad the news is are differently influenced by specific news features and the context of its delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Bad news is common in fertility care, but staff feel unprepared to share it and four in 10 patients react to it with unanticipated emotional or physical reactions. Research has paid much attention to how bad news should be shared, but considerably less to what news is perceived as bad, despite the fact this may dictate elements of its delivery. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Two cross-sectional, online, mixed-method surveys (active 7 January-16 July 2022) were distributed to fertility staff and patients across the UK and Europe. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Staff inclusion criteria were being a healthcare professional working in fertility care and having experience of sharing bad news at least once a month. Patients' inclusion criteria were being adults and having had a conversation in which staff shared or explained bad news concerning their fertility care within the last 2 months. Surveys were created in English using Qualtrics, reviewed by patients and healthcare professionals, and distributed via social media, Prolific, fertility organizations, and scientific societies. Patients were asked, regarding the last time bad news were shared with them, 'What was the bad news?' and 'What other news would you consider bad news in fertility care?'. Staff were asked to 'List the three most challenging topics of bad news you share with your patients'. Staff and patient data were separately thematically analysed to produce basic codes, organized into sub-themes and themes. Themes emerging from patients' and staff data were compared and synthesized into meta themes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Three hundred thirty-four staff accessed the survey, 286 consented, and 217 completed (65% completion rate). Three hundred forty-four patients accessed the survey, 304 consented, and 222 completed (64% completion rate). Eighty-five percent of participants were women, 62% resided in Europe, and 59% were in private care. Average staff age was 45.2 (SD = 12.0), 44% were embryologists or lab technicians, 40% were clinicians (doctors, consultants, or physicians), and 8% nurses or midwifes. Average patient age was 32.2 (SD = 6.4) and 54% had children. Staff answers originated 100 codes, 19 sub-themes and six themes. Patients' answers produced 196 codes, 34 sub-themes, and 7 themes. Staff and patient themes were integrated into three meta-themes reflecting main topics of bad news. These were Diagnosis and negative treatment events and outcomes, Inability to do (more) treatment, and Care and patient factors disrupting communication. Staff and patients agreed that some news features (uncertain, disruptive, definitive) made news more challenging but disagreed in relation to other features (e.g. unexpected/expected). Patient factors made bad news more challenging to staff (e.g. difficult emotions) and care factors made bad news more challenging to patients (e.g. disorganized care). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participants were self-selected, and most were women from private European clinics. Questions differed for staff and patients, focused on subjective perceptions of news, and did not measure news impact. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The badness of fertility news is not only a product of the extent to which the news compromises parenthood goals but also of its features (timing, nature, number) and the context in which the news is delivered. Guidance on sharing bad news in fertility care needs to go beyond easing the process for patients to also consider staff experiences. Guidance may need to be tailored to news features and context. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Cardiff University funded the research. S.G., J.B., O'.H., and A.D. report funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) to develop fertiShare: a sharing bad news eLearning course for fertility care. fertiShare will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). No other conflicts are reported in relation to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Surgeon Perspectives on the Management of Aborted Cancer Surgery: Results of a Society of Surgical Oncology Member Survey.

BACKGROUND: While surgery is generally necessary for most solid-organ cancers, curative-intent resection is occasionally aborted due to unanticipated unresectability or occult metastases. Following aborted cancer surgery (ACS), patients have unique and complex care needs and yet little is known about the optimal approach to their management. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define the practice patterns and perspectives of an international cohort of cancer surgeons on the management of ACS. METHODS: A validated survey assessing surgeon perspectives on patient care needs and management following ACS was developed. The survey was distributed electronically to members of the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO). RESULTS: Among 190 participating surgeons, mean age was 49 ± 11 years, 69% were male, 61% worked at an academic institution, and most had a clinical practice focused on liver/pancreas (30%), breast (23%), or melanoma/sarcoma cancers (20%). Participants estimated that ACS occurred in 7 ± 6% of their cancer operations, most often due to occult metastases (67%) or local unresectability (30%). Most surgeons felt (very) comfortable addressing their patients' surgical needs (92%) and cancer treatment-related questions (90%), but fewer expressed comfort addressing psychosocial needs (83%) or symptom-control needs (69%). While they perceived discussing next available therapies as the patients' most important priority after ACS, surgeons reported avoiding postoperative complications as their most important priority (p < 0.001). While 61% and 27% reported utilizing palliative care and psychosocial oncology, respectively, in these situations, 46% noted care coordination as a barrier to addressing patient care needs. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this SSO member survey suggest that ACS is relatively common and associated with unique patient care needs. Surgeons may feel less comfortable assessing psychosocial and symptom-control needs, highlighting the need for novel patient-centered approaches.

The Communication of Bad News in Palliative Care: The View of Professionals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Communication is one of the central axes around which end-of-life care revolves in the context of palliative care. Communication of bad news is reported as one of the most difficult and stressful tasks by palliative care professionals. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify aspects related to the communication of bad news in palliative care in Spain. METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study. An ad hoc questionnaire was designed and sent by e-mail to all palliative care teams in Spain. RESULTS: Overall, 206 professionals (102 nurses, 88 physicians and 16 psychologists) completed the questionnaire. A total of 60.2% considered their communication of bad news skills to be good or very good. This was related to older age, experience in both the profession and palliative care, and to having received specific postgraduate training (P < .001). Around 42.2% perform communication of bad news with the patient first, which is associated with lower skill (P = .013). About 78.15% of the professionals do not use any specific protocol. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patients access palliative care with little information about their diagnosis and prognosis. The barriers identified in the communication of bad news are the lack of specific education and training in protocol management, the difficult balance between hope and honesty, the young age of the patient, and the family.

Discussion of the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders with the family caregivers of cancer patients: An example from a major cancer center in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of the family caregivers (FCGs) about the "do-not-resuscitate" (DNR) discussions and decision-making processes that occurred during hospitalization in a Saudi cancer center. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, the FCGs of inpatients with advanced cancer completed a self-administered questionnaire soon after giving the patients a DNR status designation by their oncologists. RESULTS: Eighty-two FCGs participated in the study, with a median age of 36.5 years and male preponderance (70.7%). The FCGs were mostly sons (41.5%), daughters (14%), or brothers (11%) of patients. Only 13.4% of mentally competent patients had the chance to listen to the DNR discussion. The discussion mainly occurred in the ward corridor (48.8%) or another room away from the patients' rooms (35.4%). In 36.6% of cases, the discussion took ≤5 minutes. Half of the FCGs stated that the oncologists' justifications for the DNR decision were unconvincing. The majority (84.2%) of the FCGs felt that the healthcare providers should share the DNR decision-making with patients (1.2%), families (69.5%), or both (13.4%). FCGs ≤ 30 years of age were more supportive of giving patients' families a chance to participate in the DNR decision-making process (p = 0.012). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: There is considerable room for improving the current practice of DNR discussions and decision-making processes in the studied setting. A readily feasible rectifying measure is to ensure the adequacy of time and privacy when planning for DNR discussions. We expect our findings to draw the attention of stakeholders to a compelling need for reviewing the current policies and processes, aiming to improve the experience of cancer patients and their FCGs.

Breaking bad news in ophthalmology: a literature review / Comunicação de más notícias em oftalmologia: uma revisão de literatura

ABSTRACT Medical specialties have recognized that breaking bad news assists clinical practice by mitigating the impact of difficult conversations. This scenario also encourages various studies on breaking bad news in ophthalmology since certain ocular diagnoses can be considered bad news. Thus, the objective is to review the scientific literature on breaking bad news in ophthalmology. The literature databases like MEDLINE/PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, COCHRANE, and SCIELO, were screened for related research publications. Two independent reviewers read all the articles and short-listed the most relevant ones. Seven articles, in the formats of original article, review, editorial, oral communication, and correspondence, were reviewed. Conclusively it reveals that ophthalmologists are concerned with communicating bad news effectively but lack related studies. Nevertheless, there is a growing realization that training in breaking bad news can increase physicians' confidence during communication, thus, benefiting the therapeutic relationship with the patient and his family. Therefore, it would be valuable to include breaking bad news training in the curriculum of residencies.

RESUMO O reconhecimento sobre a comunicação de más notícias como mitigadora de conversas difíceis por outras especialidades médicas, incentiva o estudo desta temática na oftalmologia. Sendo assim, o objetivo deste estudo é revisar a produção de pesquisas científicas sobre a comunicação de más notícias em oftalmologia. Para isso, foi realizada uma revisão de literatura. As bases de dados utilizadas foram MEDLINE/PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, COCHRANE e SCIELO. Dois revisores independentes leram todos os artigos e selecionaram a amostra final. Sete artigos foram escolhidos nos formatos de artigo original, revisão, editorial, comunicação oral e correspondência. Os oftalmologistas estão preocupados em comunicar as más notícias de forma eficaz, mas faltam estudos sobre o tema. No entanto, há uma crescente percepção de que o treinamento de comunicação de más notícias aumenta a confiança dos médicos na comunicação, beneficiando a relação terapêutica. Portanto, seria valioso incluir este treinamento no currículo das residências.

Communication coaching for sonographers (CCS): Preliminary evaluation of a novel intervention to improve unexpected news delivery.

Objective: Obstetric ultrasound scans provide real-time results. In some organisations and countries, the immediate communication of results by sonographers to patients is standard practice, but there is a lack of evidence-based training to support them with this challenging task. This pilot study evaluated a novel communication coaching intervention to improve sonographer communication. Methods: Coaches met with sonographers(N = 15) three times. Sonographers collected three audio recordings of scans involving unexpected news communication at baseline(R1), post-Session 1(R2) and post-Session 2(R3), which were rated for communication skills. Participants self-reported communication confidence and burnout before(T1) and after(T2) the intervention. Feedback was collected at T2. Data were analysed using paired-samples t-tests with bootstrapped significance estimates. Results: N = 10 sonographers completed the intervention. There were significant increases in communication skills(R1 m = 4.85, SD = 1.07; R3 m = 6.73, SD = 1.80, p = 0.003) and communication confidence(T1 m = 28.00, SD = 6.27; T2 m = 32.80, SD = 6.05, p = 0.005). There were no significant changes in burnout(p > 0.05). All respondents said they would recommend the intervention and most strongly agreed it was engaging(n = 8; 89%) and imparted useful skills(n = 8; 89%). Conclusion: Communication coaching is an acceptable, potentially effective tool for improving communication of unexpected news by sonographers in ultrasound. Innovation: This is the first evaluation of an intervention to support obstetric sonographers with news delivery.