7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Breaking Bad News Training in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond

      article-commentary

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          COVID-19 has disrupted the status quo for healthcare education. As a result, redeployed doctors and nurses are caring for patients at the end of their lives and breaking bad news with little experience or training. This article aims to understand why redeployed doctors and nurses feel unprepared to break bad news through a content analysis of their training curricula. As digital learning has come to the forefront in health care education during this time, relevant digital resources for breaking bad news training are suggested.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment.

          In just a few years, e-learning has become part of the mainstream in medical education. While e-learning means many things to many people, at its heart it is concerned with the educational uses of technology. For the purposes of this guide, we consider the many ways that the information revolution has affected and remediated the practice of healthcare teaching and learning. Deploying new technologies usually introduces tensions, and e-learning is no exception. Some wish to use it merely to perform pre-existing activities more efficiently or faster. Others pursue new ways of thinking and working that the use of such technology affords them. Simultaneously, while education, not technology, is the prime goal (and for healthcare, better patient outcomes), we are also aware that we cannot always predict outcomes. Sometimes, we have to take risks, and 'see what happens.' Serendipity often adds to the excitement of teaching. It certainly adds to the excitement of learning. The use of technology in support of education is not, therefore, a causal or engineered set of practices; rather, it requires creativity and adaptability in response to the specific and changing contexts in which it is used. Medical Education, as with most fields, is grappling with these tensions; the AMEE Guide to e-Learning in Medical Education hopes to help the reader, whether novice or expert, navigate them. This Guide is presented both as an introduction to the novice, and as a resource to more experienced practitioners. It covers a wide range of topics, some in broad outline, and others in more detail. Each section is concluded with a brief 'Take Home Message' which serves as a short summary of the section. The Guide is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the basic concepts of e-learning, e-teaching, and e-assessment, and then focuses on the day-to-day issues of e-learning, looking both at theoretical concepts and practical implementation issues. The second part examines technical, management, social, design and other broader issues in e-learning, and it ends with a review of emerging forms and directions in e-learning in medical education.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer.

            We describe a protocol for disclosing unfavorable information-"breaking bad news"-to cancer patients about their illness. Straightforward and practical, the protocol meets the requirements defined by published research on this topic. The protocol (SPIKES) consists of six steps. The goal is to enable the clinician to fulfill the four most important objectives of the interview disclosing bad news: gathering information from the patient, transmitting the medical information, providing support to the patient, and eliciting the patient's collaboration in developing a strategy or treatment plan for the future. Oncologists, oncology trainees, and medical students who have been taught the protocol have reported increased confidence in their ability to disclose unfavorable medical information to patients. Directions for continuing assessment of the protocol are suggested.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer.

              This is an updated version of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2004, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses have been proposed and are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective. To assess whether CST is effective in improving the communication skills of HCPs involved in cancer care, and in improving patient health status and satisfaction. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2012, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL to February 2012. The original search was conducted in November 2001. In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and relevant conference proceedings for additional studies. The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In this updated version, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating 'CST' compared with 'no CST' or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real and/or simulated patients with cancer, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research. Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects model and, for continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs). We included 15 RCTs (42 records), conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven studies compared CST with no CST intervention, three studies compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training, and one study compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists (six studies), residents (one study) other doctors (one study), nurses (six studies) and a mixed team of HCPs (one study). Overall, 1147 HCPs participated (536 doctors, 522 nurses and 80 mixed HCPs).Ten studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the CST group were statistically significantly more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (five studies, 679 participant interviews; P = 0.04, I² = 65%) and more likely to show empathy towards patients (six studies, 727 participant interviews; P = 0.004, I² = 0%); we considered this evidence to be of moderate and high quality, respectively. Doctors and nurses did not perform statistically significantly differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no statistically significant differences in the other HCP communication skills except for the subgroup of participant interviews with simulated patients, where the intervention group was significantly less likely to present 'facts only' compared with the control group (four studies, 344 participant interviews; P = 0.01, I² = 70%).There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to outcomes assessing HCP 'burnout', patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills. Patients in the control group experienced a greater reduction in mean anxiety scores in a meta-analyses of two studies (169 participant interviews; P = 0.02; I² = 8%); we considered this evidence to be of a very low quality. Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving some types of HCP communication skills related to information gathering and supportive skills. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', patients' mental or physical health, and patient satisfaction.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Educ Curric Dev
                J Med Educ Curric Dev
                MDE
                spmde
                Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2382-1205
                10 July 2020
                Jan-Dec 2020
                : 7
                : 2382120520938706
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [2 ]Transforming End of Life Care Team, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Gehan Soosaipillai, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor, Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother Building, St. Mary’s Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK. Email: gsoosaip@ 123456ic.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5104-7920
                Article
                10.1177_2382120520938706
                10.1177/2382120520938706
                7357050
                0a73ecb9-61e4-405d-854e-7ea58c8ca52c
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 7 May 2020
                : 4 June 2020
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2020
                ts1

                medical education,nursing education,breaking bad news,end of life care,covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article