Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine

Transcription

1 Review Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine Lesley Fallowfield, Valerie Jenkins In every medical specialty bad, sad, and difficult information must be given to patients and their families. An insensitive approach increases the distress of recipients of bad news, may exert a lasting impact on their ability to adapt and adjust, and can lead to anger and an increased risk of litigation. Many doctors also find these interactions stressful, and in the absence of much effective training they may adopt inappropriate ways of delivering bad news and coping with the emotional fall-out. Recognition of these difficulties has led to many initiatives, ranging from increased communication skills training to the development of guidelines and protocols. We review some of the research on the impact that giving sad, bad, and difficult news has on doctors and patients, and assess whether interventions are helping. We focus mainly on difficulties encountered involving parents in an obstetric or paediatric setting, people in acute trauma situations such as accident and emergency departments, and patients with cancer. John Diamond, a journalist in the UK who died in 2001 of throat cancer, expressed surprise that many doctors who have to give bad news to patients for much of their careers, had not yet found a way... somewhere between the mawkish and the unnecessarily brusque, which would serve them comfortably in the majority of cases years ago we showed that despite the fact that virtually every clinical specialty requires doctors at some stage to be the bearers of sad, bad, and difficult news, a woeful lack of training existed. This gap in medical education is bad for the patients and their relatives and for the doctors themselves. Doctors first clearly remembered experiences of giving bad news are frequently harrowing and may haunt them for years to come. 2,3 We wished to see whether things have improved in the past decade. Substantial education and research data are now available, in various medical specialties, on the communication of bad, sad, and difficult news. 2,4 9 Many reports deal with the impact that bad news has on the deliverers 10 and the recipients, 11 and others contain useful guidelines and recommendations about what to do and say. 6,12 14 Although many of the recommendations seem sensible, worthy, and helpful, there is little evidence that such encouragement alone can substantially improve behavioural styles of health-care professionals, nor has much research assessed the implementation of or the adherence to the guidelines. Likewise, little work has been published that shows whether or not guidelines on breaking bad news have led to increased satisfaction among patients. Recognition that doctors may require further training to help them improve communication skills has led to the development of countless courses and workshops on breaking bad news for undergraduates 4,15 and postgraduates Although most participants report them to be helpful, few empirical data show that these courses lead to improvements that successfully transfer into practice or that any measurable improvements are sustained over time. 19 Lancet 2004; 363: Cancer Research UK Psychosocial Oncology Group, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer BN1 9QG, UK (Prof L Fallowfield DPhil, V Jenkins DPhil) Correspondence to: Prof Lesley Fallowfield ( lesley@sussex.ac.uk) We have reviewed examples of research done in different parts of the world, looking at the impact that giving sad, bad, and difficult news has on the giver and receiver. We focus mainly on problems encountered from three areas of research involving parents in an obstetric or paediatric setting, people in acute trauma situations such as accident and emergency departments, and patients with cancer. We choose these areas from the vast amount of studies available since they provide good examples of settings in which: most people expect good news; health carers might have to give sudden, unexpected, bad news to people with whom they have formed no relationship; and in which patients and relatives receive news about life-threatening disease. Finally, we review some of the interventions such as guidelines and training courses aimed at helping doctors to communicate more effectively in such stressful situations. What is bad news in medicine? Any information that produces a negative alteration to a person s expectations about their present and future could be deemed bad news. 20 Ptacek and Eberhardt 21 define bad news as information that... results in a cognitive, behavioural or emotional deficit in the person receiving the news that persists for some time after the news is received. Bad news does, of course, have gradations, which to a certain extent are subjective, dependent on an individual s life experiences, personality, spiritual beliefs, philosophical standpoint, perceived social supports, and emotional hardiness. Obvious examples that might be universally accepted as bad news include telling a mother that her baby is stillborn, telling parents that their only Search strategy We identified relevant studies for possible inclusion by searching standard computer databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (1993 February, 2003), and The Cochrane Library. Searches were restricted to papers published in English. Keywords used were: receiving bad news, breaking bad news, breaking bad news effect on patients, breaking bad news effects on doctors, communcation skills. training guidelines. truth disclosure, physician/patient, doctor/patient. disability and communication, accident and emergency and communication, and cancer/oncology and communication. 312 THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

2 Number of participants Type of study and objectives Findings and country Study Orlander et al medical house Survey of doctors feelings about For most, first experiences involved patients whom they had only known doctors, Boston, first experience of breaking bad news a few hours. 59% said they planned what to say but most said they MA, USA and opinions on how to develop needed training necessary communication skills Hammond et al obstetric Quantitative survey to examine Those working with clear protocol experienced less stress than did sonographers, Ottawa, participants perception of bad those working without a protocol ON, Canada news Grassi et al Italian physicians, Ten-item questionnaire to explore Only 25% told patients diagnosis; 33% said patients do not want to northern Italyattitudes towards truth telling to know the truth and 8% wanted guidelines on how to break the news cancer patients De Valck et al medical students, Survey to measure attitudes towards Preference for open disclosure. Female medical students rated higher Belgium breaking bad news on scores for humanity Ptacek et al doctors from various Doctors asked to respond to a series Doctors reported that transactions only moderately stressful. 42% institutions in USA of statements about behaviour, indicated that stress they experienced lasted several hours to >3 days thoughts, and feelings they might have had when delivering bad news Baile et al oncologists, Survey of practice of disclosure by Doctors gave bad news to patients an average 35 times a month. Most North America (38%), oncologists of diagnosis of cancer difficult topic was discussing no further curative treatment and hospice Europe (26%), South to patients care. Doctors from developed countries less likely to withhold America (13%), unfavourable information to patients Asia (13%) Table 1: Doctors views on breaking bad news child involved in an accident has irreversible brain damage, or informing a person that they have motor neurone disease. However, consider the following examples: explaining the need for a hip replacement that will prevent a woman from flying to Australia to see her first grandchild born, or telling a window cleaner with no other skills that he has mild epilepsy. To the impartial observer these situations might not be classified in the same category of bad news as the first examples. Nevertheless, they would have many distressing consequences other than medical for the affected patients and their relatives. Health-care professionals sometimes find it hard to step back and take into account the spectrum of physical, social, occupational, and emotional issues that may affect what information is classified as bad news by the recipient. Difficulties faced by health-care professionals Table 1 shows several studies of health-care professionals views on breaking bad news from 1993 onwards. 3,13,22 25 The disparity between physicians in opinion about truthful disclosure, the stress experienced when giving bad news, and the desire for more training is notable. Talking about distressing subjects is unpleasant, but responsibility for giving sad, bad, and difficult news may come early in training and with little experience. Few doctors receive adequate guidance and help during their initial formative experiences. 3,26 Many doctors also have difficulty handling their own emotions sorrow, guilt, identification, and feeling a failure are just part of the range of emotions reported. There is little evidence that these difficulties get easier as doctors become more experienced. Inadequate training in communication skills was acknowledged by senior hospital doctors as a major factor contributing to their high rates of burnout and psychological morbidity. 27 The content of a consultation may influence a doctor s ability to assess how well they communicated with a patient. In a comprehensive study of videotaped consultations with more than 3000 patients, doctors thought interviews and their performance were worse when palliation was being discussed than when they discussed potentially curative treatment. Their selfanalysis bore little relation to the objective analysis by trained observers of their communication skills. 28 In only one published retrospective study of 73 physicians did doctors recall only moderate degrees of stress after breaking bad news. 24 Doctors frequently censor information they give to patients about outlook on the grounds that what someone does not know cannot harm them. Such traditional paternalistic attitudes can still be seen despite moves towards increased autonomy and empowerment for patients. In one US study of physicians working in five hospices, even if patients requested survival estimates, physicians said that they would provide frank disclosure only around 37% of the time, favouring instead either no disclosure or a conscious overestimate. 29 Doctors are unaware that a failure to disclose information honestly to patients might be an attempt to protect their own emotional survival as much as to help protect the patient. Prognostic errors are nearly always made in an overly optimistic direction, but they increase the better the doctor knows the patient. 30 Patients and families needs A summary of some of the research eliciting patients and relatives views on receiving bad news is shown in table How bad, sad, or difficult information is received depends on many factors, including expectations, previous experiences, and general personality disposition. Shock, horror, anger, stoic acceptance, disbelief, and denial are all possible reactions and anyone charged with breaking bad news needs to be able to cope with these emotions. No two patients or relatives will respond in the same way to the same news, but the way in which bad news is conveyed can substantially influence their emotions, beliefs, and attitudes towards the medical staff and how they view their future. Thus, understanding what is important to patients when sad or upsetting news is given can help doctors redefine how this task is best done. Although many personal and moving anecdotal reports have been published in the medical 43 and lay press, 44 few researchers have systematically assessed how patients or the families felt immediately after having received bad news. The shortage of such research stems from worries that the burdening of distressed people with semistructured interviews and questionnaires is unethical. Although not impossible, asking the recipients of bad news questions immediately after the event can be impractical. Consequently, many reports have been based mainly on retrospective recall several months or years after the event. Nevertheless the observational and qualitative data generated from research identifying the THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

3 specific positive and negative features of communicating an unhappy diagnosis or prognosis provides invaluable material for people attempting to develop guidelines and training initiatives. Bad news in different specialties Obstetrics and paediatrics When parents conceive a wanted child they generally experience several months of excitement and nervous anticipation, hoping for an uneventful pregnancy, a safe delivery, and a normal, healthy baby. For most parents there is a happy outcome, and health-care professionals have the pleasurable experience of confirming that all is well. When things do not follow the anticipated pattern and a baby is born damaged or dead, it is therefore extremely distressing to all concerned. Sometimes everything seems well during pregnancy and delivery, but as time passes a serious disability becomes obvious. Health-care professionals need to be able to handle responses such as disbelief, distress, recriminations, and anger. The way in which parents are informed about their child s disability can affect the parent-child relationship 9 and the ability of parents to adjust psychologically to the reality of the situation. 34 After disclosure of any sad and bad news, parents are frequently very clear many years later about communication that helped them, and that which left them still feeling upset and angry. For instance, in a study of the impact that disclosure had on parents that their child had died, police officers were praised as being good informants rather than nurses or doctors. 45 Specifically, the bereaved parents recalled that the most appreciated characteristics were the informants themselves showing some concern and distress at the news rather than cold professional detachment. In one US study, 18 families in which a child had neurofibromatosis were interviewed about their experiences of being told the diagnosis. 46 Despite the availability of guidelines for breaking bad news, disclosures about the diagnosis were made in a haphazard way, leaving 16 of the 18 families feeling shocked and upset. This reaction led to depression. These findings underline the importance of providing experiential training in the actual behavioural skills needed, not just a list of guidelines about what to do. Although parents complaints about poor communication surface in many other studies, including children with cerebral palsy 34 and other life-limiting disease, 11 these reports also show some of the more positive experiences. Parents were asked to comment on their experiences when receiving news that their child had a chronic disorder such as Down s syndrome, congenital heart disease, or both. 31 The parents were clear that they could distinguish between their personal reactions to the diagnosis itself and their reactions as to how doctors had informed them. About two-thirds of the families reported Number of participants Type of study and objectives Findings and country Author Garwick et al families of children Interview; to identify factors that influenced Positive experiences noted for two-thirds of families but there with Down s syndrome, caregivers reactions to learning the were negative reactions by those provided with outdated and congenital heart child has a chronic condition inadequate information disease, or both, UK Strauss et al parents of children Questionnaire to parents; to rate dimensions Many reported positive experiences but differences between what with cleft lip, cleft of doctors communication when giving parents experienced and what they desired in informative palate, or both, USA diagnosis and parents preferences interview Girgis et al breast cancer Survey; to rate importance of 15 general 70% rated 7 of 15 principles and 6 of 12 steps as essential. patients, 64 oncologists, principles of breaking bad news, to assess Differed on relative importance of other items 140 oncology nurses, consensus and disparities between groups Australia Baird et al 34 Parents of 107 children Interviews; parents perceptions of disclosure Dissatisfaction with how diagnosis had been disclosed was with cerebral palsy, UK of diagnosis and questionnaires to measure greater if children premature, developed more severe degrees of depression and coping styles disability, and diagnosis made later. Dissatisfaction shown by later self-reported depression Friedrichsen 30 patients with Semi-structured interviews; to assess how All patients described their doctors as experts with six et al 35 advanced cancer in patients experienced information about their subcategories: inexperienced messenger, emotionally burdened, Sweden incurable state rough and ready expert, benevolent but tactless expert, distanced doctor, and empathic professional Jurkovich et al family members of Survey: to rate importance of element when Importance attributed to attitude and knowledge of news bearer, 48 patients who died in receiving bad news clarity of message, and privacy when receiving news accident and emergency department or intensive care, USA Parker et al patients with Questionnaire: to assess preferences for Factor analysis revealed three categories: content, facilitation, various cancers, USA how patients would like to be told news of and support their cancer Schofield et al newly diagnosed Survey to identify any disparities between Patients did not strongly endorse doctors helping tell others of malignant melanoma published guidelines and patients diagnosis or telling patients about cancer support services. Very patients 4 months after preferences for communication practices, few expressed a preference for presence of another health diagnosis, Australia and to document patients preferences and professional recollections of communication experiences Yardley et al patients with lung Semi-structured interview; to document Five key areas: communication, family issues, reaction to cancer, UK patients views on delivery of lung-cancer diagnosis, views on treatment, and prognosis diagnoses and ideas for improvement Ptacek and 120 patients with Descriptive statements; to document Patients reported similar experiences with doctors behaving Ptacek 40 cancer, USA patients recollections of what doctor did according to medical practice advice. Satisfaction with interview while communicating bad news was related to what was said and how doctors broke news Friedrichsen 20 family members of Semi-structured interviews; to explore Different types of family role types: demander of truth, the et al 41 patients with cancer, relatives experience of receiving bad news secret-keeper. Controller, surrendering, considerate listener, and Sweden excluded outsider Barnett patients with Interviews to assess patients perceptions 69% patients neutral or positive about consultation, 20% advanced cancer, UK of doctors involved in care negative, 6% very negative Table 2: Patients views on receiving news 314 THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

4 positive experiences, especially when doctors had tried hard to present accurate information in a sensitive way. In another study of disclosure about non-life-threatening deformity, such as cleft palate and harelip, 100 parents were asked to rate different features of their doctors communication and preferences for different types of information. 32 Parents most appreciated doctors who were confident, showed concern, and were caring, but who also allowed them plenty of time to talk and ask questions. 32,47 A severe breakdown in communication between healthcare professionals and parents can lead to distressing and stressful situations that may result in long-term investigation, for example the Bristol Inquiry. 48 This public inquiry into the management and care of children receiving complex heart surgery between 1984 and 1995 resulted in a final report and recommendations presented to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health. In the report parents described their experiences, in particular their dissatisfaction with the communication of health-care professionals, especially after their children had died. Many were critical about the way in which the bad news was broken, citing a lack of privacy and a perception of being hurried out of the way from other parents. Recommendations to improve the service included giving clear verbal and written information to parents, including the provision of copies of letters to family physicians about patients own or their children s care, and the need for clear communication between doctors and parents and between multidisciplinary team members. An exemplary model of how to change practice for the better when communicating bad news can be seen in the work done over the past decade by SCOPE, a UK organisation that campaigns for equality in society for people with cerebral palsy. The organisation investigated the experiences of parents when told their child had a disability and found that an overwhelming proportion spoke of how distressing it had been. In response a working party was set up that included SCOPE and other voluntary organisations, such as MENCAP, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and professional bodies such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Together they published a report on the way the diagnosis and disclosure of disability in children was presented to parents and ways to improve the practice. 49 The Right From the Start resource pack offers information and support for developing and training in the communication of a disabled child s needs. The resources available include a template for developing local policies based on valuing the child and respecting the parents. 50 Also provided are background reading materials, videos, a website ( and, with negotiation, the society will support conferences, workshops, training, and the development of local policies all aimed at promoting good communication. Unlike many other organisations, SCOPE has continued to update its materials and, importantly, to audit the results. Unfortunately the audit of one large health authority who had used the template to develop their own good practice manual of guidelines showed that around a third of key professionals had no knowledge of the guidelines or training opportunities available. This finding shows not only how difficult implementation of training initiatives can be but also the importance of monitoring adherence and change. Acute trauma Staff in accident and emergency departments frequently have to tell families bad news and the experience can be especially stressful for all concerned since there is little or no opportunity to develop a trusting relationship with the family. In a questionnaire survey, researchers asked 54 family members of 48 patients who had died to rate the importance of 14 items relevant to being given bad news. 36 Among the most important attributes for these family members were privacy when receiving the news, the attitude and knowledge of the news bearer, and the clarity of the message. The suboptimum care that patients receive in criticalcare units has been receiving increasing attention. 51 Along with poor clinical features of treatment and care, inadequate communication can lead to complaints by patients and their families. In response to this situation, a National Health Service Trust in Portsmouth, UK, developed a workshop based on advanced life-support courses designed for trainee surgeons called the Acute Life threatening Events-Recognition and Treatment course. The format of the 1-day workshop for all professionals working with critically ill patients includes precourse reading (a 70-page course handbook), informal and interactive seminars, practical demonstrations, role play, and discussion, with specific sessions on breaking bad news and communication between professionals. 52 Although the course has been running successfully since 2000, there is no objective evidence of its effectiveness to date. Another example of a delicate situation in which good communication is essential is the seeking of permission from recently bereaved families for organ donation. 53 A request for a postmortem has to be made at a time when relatives will be in the acute phase of grieving, displaying emotions such as shock, denial, and anger. Asking for donation requires personal insight into and awareness of the needs of bereaved relatives as well as good communication skills. Some clinicians do not believe it is their role to discuss donation with relatives. 54 To address the problems that relatives report and to meet the training needs of clinicians and nurses who feel uncomfortable approaching bereaved relatives about donation, the European Donor Hospital Education Programme was devised ( This programme consists of two parts: part 1 is a hospitalbased lecture to raise awareness and understanding among health-care professionals of organ and tissue donation; part 2 is a 1-day grief response and donation request workshop. The workshops are led by two experienced communication-skills trainers, and are attended by a maximum of eight doctors and eight nurses working in critical care. The workshop includes reflection of personal feelings aroused by loss and separation, role play with actors playing bereaved relatives, and discussion on ways of setting up in-hospital protocols for dealing with the bereaved. The programme was introduced into the northwest of England in 1995 as part of a randomised controlled study to assess the effects of workshop attendance on the competence of intensive-care-unit doctors and nurses. For ten experimental and ten control nurse-doctor pairs the researchers reported positive changes in the communication skills of nurses after the course. 55 Clinicians in the experimental group also showed notable improvements when breaking bad news and requesting donation, but unfortunately most of the improvements were not maintained over time. Cancer Consultations with patients and their relatives within oncology pose many difficulties. 56 Optimum com- THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

5 munication is frequently thwarted by the pressures of time constraints in some health-care systems, together with political imperatives to meet targets and contain costs. Therefore, the communicating of bad news about diagnosis or recurrence, or discussion of transition from active curative treatment to palliative care with ill and anxious people are not simple tasks. A doctor may also have to explain the need for further diagnostic tests, complex therapeutic options and their side-effects, describe the uncertainty that exists about optimum treatments, and the possibility of trial participation and randomisation. Patients perceptions of the way in which doctors deliver bad news alter understanding, decisions about treatment options, and later adjustment. The emotional experience of receiving bad news does not seem to overwhelm a patient s ability to distinguish the effective communicator from the less effective. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 30 Swedish cancer patients who were given the news that their treatment was to change from curative to palliation identified six classifications of clinicians. 35 All were described as experts who had various characteristics and qualities: the inexperienced messenger, the emotionally burdened, the rough and ready, the benevolent but tactless, the distanced doctor, and the empathic professional. There is a broad consensus of opinion about how patients want to hear news and what they need to hear. The need for an empathic delivery was reported in an Australian survey, in which patients with breast cancer wanted to be given the diagnosis and prognosis honestly and in simple language but not too bluntly. 33 Some studies have been done of cancer patients interpretations of the meaning of words included in bad news and the importance attached to them. Swedish patients interpreted information conveyed to them about ending active tumour treatment as either emotionally trying or as fortifying and strengthening. The relevant words had focused the patients on treatment, quality of life issues, or towards threat and death. 41 The difficulty for most doctors is getting the balance right, of being honest but at the same time encouraging, hopeful, and supportive. When the preferences of 351 patients with cancer about being given bad news were assessed, although the setting and the need for emotional support were deemed important, content received the highest rating from patients. 37 If patients are to make appropriate decisions about their treatment the content of discussions needs to be honest. In a survey of the experiences of patients with head and neck cancer, researchers concluded that patients wanted their doctors to be truthful, caring, and compassionate, to speak in simple terms, and to use unambiguous language. 57 Ambiguity is common in cancer consultations. We know that euphemistic expressions are commonly used in an attempt to soften the blow, 58,59 but sometimes health-care professionals are unaware that they have conveyed the wrong meaning, especially if their nonverbal communication has not been congruent with the intended message. Research has shown that poor communication when breaking bad news means that patients with advanced malignant disease might be unaware of their diagnosis 60 and outlook, 61 and, therefore, can misunderstand the therapeutic intent of treatment. 62 Some frequently used words such as positive and negative nodes, and phrases such as the disease is progressing have different connotations when used in a medical rather than layperson context and might alarm or falsely reassure patients. 63 Too much emphasis is perhaps placed on the communication of bad news by one individual. Cancer care is frequently delivered by multidisciplinary teams and, therefore, demands excellent continuity of communication and awareness about what has been said within the team and between individual team members, patients, and families. Team members frequently have little awareness about each other s informational roles and responsibilities. 64 Furthermore, what has been communicated about the diagnosis and prognosis is not well documented in hospital records, 65 and collusion with relatives to deceive patients about the reality of their situation is still evident. The content of future training initiatives may need to include more about ethics and team approaches to the delivery of bad news to ensure appropriateness and consistency of the message being delivered. Interventions to help communication Guidelines There are many guidelines and recommendations as to how doctors should prepare themselves before imparting bad news, about what constitutes an optimum supportive environment, and how difficult information should be given. Examples of such guidelines are summarised in table 3. 6,12,50,66 The empirical basis for guideline development is important, in particular checking that guidelines have some face validity, are ethical, practical, and address patients needs. A good example can be seen in Australia, where researchers did a survey of 131 newly diagnosed patients with melanoma to assess preferences for information and memory for how they were told news. 38 The findings were compared with the current recommendations on breaking bad news to identify any disparities. Overall the guidelines were relevant and supported by the patients expressed preferences, but there were some disparities highlighting the importance of getting feedback from patients about the areas that make a difference to them. In another excellent Australian survey involving patients with breast cancer, a reasonable degree of consensus was reported between patients, oncologists, and oncology nurses about their published guidelines for breaking bad news. 33 Some congruence exists between guidelines and the views of patients and relatives as to how unpleasant news should be delivered, but significant evidence for their implementation in a clinical setting without further Guidelines Study and country Baile et al, 6 USA SPIKES: Setting up interview, assessing patient s Perception, obtaining patient s Invitation, giving Knowledge and information, addressing the patient s Emotions, strategy and Summary Girgis and Sanson-Fisher, 12 Ensure privacy and adequate time, assess understanding, provide information simply and encourage patients to express Australia feelings, give broad time frame, arrange review, discuss treatment options, offer assistance to tell others, provide information about support services, document information given SCOPE, 50 UK Preparation, who should be present, tuning in to parents, effective communication Rabow and McPhee, 66 USA Advance preparation, build therapeutic relationship, communicate well, deal with patients and families reactions, encourage and validate emotions Table 3: Examples of guidelines 316 THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

6 Participants and country Type of study and content Measures Outcome Study Farrell et al health-care professionals Five 1-day workshops (10 people): Assessment questionnaire with High praise for workshops, in paediatrics, UK role play, reflection and discussion, qualitative questions subject Promotion of self-awareness and develop own breaking bad news to content analysis multidisciplinary awareness of guidelines teams roles in breaking bad news Faulkner et al nurses and doctors, UK Four residential workshops: No pretest measures 91% gave a warning of distressing observational study, learner centred, information, 85% gave information role play, feedback, discussion at the patient s pace, 5% attempted to pick up the pieces Baile et al oncology faculty, USA Postgraduate two half-day workshops: Self-efficacy and satisfaction Increase in confidence breaking bad news and problem questionnaires situations, didactic and role play, used SPIKES Greenberg et al 71 Paediatric residents in Role play with actors Assessment of counselling and Improved counselling skills, higher accident and emergency, USA informing skills, trainee feedback confidence Vetto et al 72 First-year and second-year Formal instruction in breaking Compared old curriculum students No significant difference apart from medical students, USA bad news with those taught via the OSCEs humanistic skills Vaidya et al 73 Seven paediatric 1-day workshops: videotaped role Given feedback through objective Significant improvement between intensive-care fellows, USA play with volunteer standardised analysis by trained observers first and second scenario parents Garg et al third-year medical Two half-day teaching sessions: Questionnaire before and after High ratings of acceptability students, Canada video presentation, discussion, role course to measure attitude play with actors changes, plus questionnaires given over 5 years Ungar et al family-medicine Mandatory training: group work 12-item Likert scale, satisfaction High satisfaction, deemed relevant residents over 4 years, (four 10-people groups), role play questionnaires, instruction to work, decided to use OSCEs for Israel with actors, video feedback, peer techniques, teachers skills, objective measure in future consultation, self-awareness group open-ended feedback Rosenbaum and 341 third-year medical Small group practice of delivering Surveys before and 4 weeks and Became more comfortable Kreiter 76 students, USA bad news with actors 1 year after course, rating of and rated course highly comfort with scenarios OSCE=objective structured clinical examination. Table 4: Training courses on breaking bad news training is lacking. In a qualitative study of first-year and second-year medical and surgical residents in Canada, despite an ability to identify several important guidelines pertinent when breaking bad news, many did not practise them. The barriers cited included a lack of support from other health-care professionals, time, and personal fears. The lack of supervision and opportunities to discuss feelings after difficult interviews were also seen as barriers to implementation, personal growth, and confidence. 67 Nevertheless in some reports staff who work with clear protocols about difficult disclosures to patients experience less stress than those without guidelines. For example the results of a quantitative survey of 180 obstetric ultrasonographers showed that most had concerns about time constraints and the unpredictability of women s reactions if news was bad, but they experienced less stress in institutions with disclosure guidelines. 13 Communication skills courses and workshops Many training courses on breaking bad news have been reported, but many of these initiatives use a wide variety of models and approaches, some devoid of any clear educational theory or attempts to elucidate specific objectives and outcomes that could be assessed. 68 Examples of such courses from the past few years are shown in table 4. 18,69 76 Most courses and workshops rely heavily on self-report of confidence ratings before and after course and acceptability of the training as their outcome measures. These measures are generally positive but provide little hard evidence of effectiveness for transfer of good skills into practice and improvements in patient-rated outcomes. Moreover the preponderance of training courses in breaking bad news might suggest that generic communication skills of health-care professionals in other areas do not need improvement. This is manifestly not the case. As breaking bad news appropriately is only one element of interacting well with patients, perhaps the content and methods of courses aimed at improving communication in general should be assessed. The most successful methods, according to one systematic review, 77 seem to be learner-centred approaches similar to those pioneered by Lipkin and colleagues 78 in the USA. The essential characteristics are provision of a cognitive component or evidence base for suggested skills, a behavioural component allowing participants to rehearse the actual communication skills required through role play with patient actors playing patients, and an affective component permitting participants to explore the feelings that communicating about difficult issues evoke. For example, in a large randomised controlled trial, an intensive 3-day training course that used a modified Lipkin model significantly altered and improved oncologists communication skills. 79 The course also significantly altered attitudes and beliefs about the importance of psychosocial issues and communicating well. 80 The improvement in skills was still evident 12 months later when assessed in the clinical setting despite no further intervention. 81 Such courses are resource intensive and expensive but are probably necessary if changes are to be made to communication behaviours and if skills are transferred and maintained in a pressured clinical environment. Conclusion The delivery of sad, bad, and difficult news will always be an unpleasant but necessary part of medicine. In the past decade recognition has grown of the need to integrate appropriate communication skills teaching into undergraduate and postgraduate education. Research has shown that if bad news is communicated badly it can cause confusion, long lasting distress, and resentment; if done well, it can assist understanding, acceptance, and adjustment. Training health-care professionals how to do the task more effectively will produce benefits for them as well as their patients, but this training needs to be based THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

7 on sound educational principles, informed by evidence, and assessed and monitored adequately. Conflict of interest statement None declared. Acknowledgments LF and VJ have received funding from Cancer Research UK for communication skills work. References 1 Diamond JC. Because cowards get cancer too. London: Vermillion, Fallowfield L. Giving sad and bad news. Lancet 1993; 341: Orlander JD, Fincke BG, Hermanns D, Johnson GA. Medical residents first clearly remembered experiences of giving bad news. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: Cushing AM, Jones A. Evaluation of a breaking bad news course for medical students. Med Educ 1995; 29: Maguire P. Breaking bad news. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998; 24: Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist 2000; 5: Newton JT, Fiske J. Breaking bad news: a guide for dental healthcare professionals. Br Dent J 1999; 186: Ungar L, Alperin M, Amiel GE, Beharier Z, Reis S. Breaking bad news: structured training for family medicine residents. Patient Educ Couns 2002; 48: Jan M, Girvin JP. The communication of neurological bad news to parents. Can J Neurol Sci 2002; 29: Ptacek JT, Fries EA, Eberhardt TL, Ptacek JJ. Breaking bad news to patients: physicians perceptions of the process. Support Care Cancer 1999; 7: Davies R, Davis B, Sibert J. Parents stories of sensitive and insensitive care by paediatricians in the time leading up to and including diagnostic disclosure of a life-limiting condition in their child. Child Care Health Dev 2003; 29: Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW. Breaking bad news: consensus guidelines for medical practitioners. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: Hammond I, Franche RL, Black DM, Gaudette S. The radiologist and the patient: breaking bad news. Can Assoc Radiol J 1999; 50: VandeKieft GK. Breaking bad news. Am Fam Physician 2001; 64: Klein S, Tracy D, Kitchener HC, Walker LG. The effects of the participation of patients with cancer in teaching communication skills to medical undergraduates: a randomised study with follow-up after 2 years. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36: Parle M, Maguire P, Heaven C. The development of a training model to improve health professionals skills, self-efficacy and outcome expectancies when communicating with cancer patients. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: Baile WF, Lenzi R, Kudelka AP, et al. Improving physician-patient communication in cancer care: outcome of a workshop for oncologists. J Cancer Educ 1997; 12: Farrell M, Ryan S, Langrick B. Breaking bad news within a paediatric setting: an evaluation report of a collaborative education workshop to support health professionals. J Adv Nurs 2001; 36: Libert Y, Conradt S, Reynaert C, et al. Improving doctor s communication skills in oncology: review and future perspectives. Bull Cancer 2001; 88: Buckman R. Breaking bad news: why is it still so difficult? BMJ 1984; 288: Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL. Breaking bad news: a review of the literature. JAMA 1996; 276: Grassi L, Giraldi T, Messina EG, Magnani K, Valle E, Cartei G. Physicians attitudes to and problems with truth-telling to cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2000; 8: De Valck C, Bensing J, Bruynooghe R. Medical students attitudes towards breaking bad news: an empirical test of the World Health Organization model. Psychooncology 2001; 10: Ptacek JT, Ptacek JJ, Ellison NM. I m sorry to tell you... physicians reports of breaking bad news. J Behav Med 2001; 24: Baile WF, Lenzi R, Parker PA, Buckman R, Cohen L. Oncologists attitudes toward and practices in giving bad news: an exploratory study. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: Firth-Cozens J. Emotional distress in junior house-officers. BMJ 1987; 295: Ramirez AJ, Graham J, Richards MA, Cull A, Gregory WM. Mental health of hospital consultants: the effects of stress and satisfaction at work. Lancet 1996; 347: Fallowfield LJ, Jenkins VA, Beveridge HA. Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care. Palliat Med 2002; 16: Lamont EB, Christakis NA. Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer near the end of life. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: Christakis NA, Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2000; 320: Garwick AW, Patterson J, Bennett FC, Blum RW. Breaking the news. How families first learn about their child s chronic condition. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995; 149: Strauss RP, Sharp MC, Lorch SC, Kachalia B. Physicians and the communication of bad news : parent experiences of being informed of their child s cleft lip and/or palate. Pediatrics 1995; 96: Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Schofield MJ. Is there consensus between breast cancer patients and providers on guidelines for breaking bad news? Behav Med 1999; 25: Baird G, McConachie H, Scrutton D. Parents perceptions of disclosure of the diagnosis of cerebral palsy. Arch Dis Child 2000; 83: Friedrichsen MJ, Strang PM, Carlsson ME. Breaking bad news in the transition from curative to palliative cancer care: patient s view of the doctor giving the information. Support Care Cancer 2000; 8: Jurkovich GJ, Pierce B, Pananen L, Rivara FP. Giving bad news: the family perspective. J Trauma 2000; 48: Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C, Lenzi R, Kudelka AP, Cohen L. Breaking bad news about cancer: patients preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: Schofield PE, Beeney LJ, Thompson JF, Butow PN, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM. Hearing the bad news of a cancer diagnosis: the Australian melanoma patient s perspective. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: Yardley SJ, Davis CL, Sheldon F. Receiving a diagnosis of lung cancer: patients interpretations, perceptions and perspectives. Palliat Med 2001; 15: Ptacek JT, Ptacek JJ. Patients perceptions of receiving bad news about cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: Friedrichsen MJ, Strang PM, Carlsson ME. Cancer patients interpretations of verbal expressions when given information about ending cancer treatment. Palliat Med 2002; 16: Barnett MM. Effect of breaking bad news on patients perceptions of doctors. J R Soc Med 2002; 95: Poulson J. Bitter pills to swallow. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: Ramrayka. Starting right. The Guardian (London), Nov 20, 2002: Finlay I, Dallimore D. Your child is dead. BMJ 1991; 302: Ablon J. Parents responses to their child s diagnosis of neurofibromatosis 1. Am J Med Genet 2000; 93: Sharp MC, Strauss RP, Lorch SC. Communicating medical bad news: parents experiences and preferences. J Pediatr 1992; 121: Bristol Royal Infirmary. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary Bristol: Bristol Royal Infirmary, SCOPE. Right from the start. London: Campaigns and Parliamentary Affairs Department, 1999: SCOPE. Right from the start template: good practice in sharing the news. London: Department of Health, 2003: McQuillan P, Pilkington S, Allan A, et al. Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive care. BMJ 1998; 316: Smith GB, Osgood VM, Crane S. ALERT: a multiprofessional training course in the care of the acutely ill adult patient. Resuscitation 2002; 52: Pearson IY, Bazeley P, Spencer-Plane T, Chapman JR, Robertson P. A survey of families of brain dead patients: their experiences, attitudes to organ donation and transplantation. Anaesth Intensive Care 1995; 23: Pearson IY, Zurynski Y. A survey of personal and professional attitudes of intensivists to organ donation and transplantation. Anaesth Intensive Care 1995; 23: Morton J, Blok GA, Reid C, van Dalen J, Morley M. The European Donor Hospital Education Programme (EDHEP): enhancing communication skills with bereaved relatives. Anaesth Intensive Care 2000; 28: Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: Kim MK, Alvi A. Breaking the bad news of cancer: the patient s perspective. Laryngoscope 1999; 109: Dunn SM, Patterson PU, Butow PN, Smartt HH, McCarthy WH, Tattersall MH. Cancer by another name: a randomized trial of the 318 THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,

8 effects of euphemism and uncertainty in communicating with cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: Fallowfield LJ, Clark AW. Delivering bad news in gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: Chan A, Woodruff RK. Communicating with patients with advanced cancer. J Palliat Care 1997; 13: Butow PN, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH. Communication with cancer patients: does it matter? J Palliat Care 1995; 11: Quirt CF, Mackillop WJ, Ginsburg AD, et al. Do doctors know when their patients don t? A survey of doctor-patient communication in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1997; 18: Chapman K, Abraham C, Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Lay understanding of terms used in cancer consultations. Psychooncology 2003; 12: Jenkins VA, Fallowfield LJ, Poole K. Are members of multidisciplinary teams in breast cancer aware of each other s informational roles? Qual Health Care 2001; 10: Kirwan JM, Tincello DG, Lavender T, Kingston RE. How doctors record breaking bad news in ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: Rabow MW, McPhee SJ. Beyond breaking bad news: how to help patients who suffer. West J Med 1999; 171: Dosanjh S, Barnes J, Bhandari M. Barriers to breaking bad news among medical and surgical residents. Med Educ 2001; 35: Cegala DJ, Lenzmeier Broz S. Physician communication skills training: a review of theoretical backgrounds, objectives and skills. Med Educ 2002; 36: Faulkner A, Argent J, Jones A, O Keeffe C. Improving the skills of doctors in giving distressing information. Med Educ 1995; 29: Baile WF, Kudelka AP, Beale EA, et al. Communication skills training in oncology: description and preliminary outcomes of workshops on breaking bad news and managing patient reactions to illness. Cancer 1999; 86: Greenberg LW, Ochsenschlager D, O Donnell R, Mastruserio J, Cohen GJ. Communicating bad news: a pediatric department s evaluation of a simulated intervention. Pediatrics 1999; 103: Vetto JT, Elder NC, Toffler WL, Fields SA. Teaching medical students to give bad news: does formal instruction help? J Cancer Educ 1999; 14: Vaidya VU, Greenberg LW, Patel KM, Strauss LH, Pollack MM. Teaching physicians how to break bad news: a 1-day workshop using standardized parents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153: Garg A, Buckman R, Kason Y. Teaching medical students how to break bad news. CMAJ 1997; 156: Ungar L, Alperin M, Amiel G, Behrier Z, Reiss S. Breaking bad news: structured training for family medicine residents. Patient Educ Couns 2002; 48: Rosenbaum ME, Kreiter C. Teaching delivery of bad news using experiential sessions with standardized patients. Teach Learn Med 2002; 14: Fellowes D, Wilkinson S, Moore P. Communication skills training for health professionals working with cancer patients, their families and/or carers (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, Oxford: Update Software. 78 Lipkin M, Kaplan C, Clark W, Novack D. Teaching medical interviewing: the Lipkin model. In: Lipkin M, Putnam SM, Lazare A, eds. The medical interview: clinical care, education, and research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995: Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Saul J, Duffy A, Eves R. Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359: Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Can communication skills training alter physicians beliefs and behavior in clinics? J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Solis-Trapala I. Enduring impact of communication skills training: results of a 12-month follow-up. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: THE LANCET Vol 363 January 24,