100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
60 Ansichten11 Seiten
Delivering bad news is something that occurs daily in most medical practices. A variety of models are currently being used in medical education to teach skills. How bad news is delivered can have a significant impact on patients' perspective of illness.
Delivering bad news is something that occurs daily in most medical practices. A variety of models are currently being used in medical education to teach skills. How bad news is delivered can have a significant impact on patients' perspective of illness.
Delivering bad news is something that occurs daily in most medical practices. A variety of models are currently being used in medical education to teach skills. How bad news is delivered can have a significant impact on patients' perspective of illness.
Teaching Medical Students and Residents Skills for
Delivering Bad News: A Review of Strategies Marcy E. Rosenbaum, PhD, Kristi J. Ferguson, PhD, and Jeffrey G. Lobas, MD ABSTRACT Although delivering bad news is something that occurs daily in most medical practices, the majority of clinicians have not received formal training in this essential and important communication task. A variety of models are currently being used in medical education to teach skills for delivering bad news. The goals of this article are (1) to describe these available models, including their advan- tages and disadvantages and evaluations of their effective- ness; and (2) to serve as a guide to medical educators who are initiating or rening curriculum for medical students and residents. Based on a review of the literature and the authors own experiences, they conclude that curricular efforts to teach these skills should include multiple ses- sions and opportunities for demonstration, reection, dis- cussion, practice, and feedback. Acad Med. 2004;79:107117. D elivering bad news, a task that occurs in any medical practice, can be daunting for the clini- cian. Although it is most often thought of as communicating about life-threatening illness, the imminence of death, or communicating about the death of a loved one to a family member, Bor et al. 1 provide a useful and more inclusive denition of bad news: . . . situations where there is either a feeling of no hope, a threat to a persons mental or physical well-being, a risk of upsetting an estab- lished lifestyle, or where a message is given which conveys to an individual fewer choices in his or her life. Given this denition, delivering bad news is something that occurs daily for most practicing clinicians. How bad news is delivered can have a signicant impact on patients perspective of illness, their long-term relation- ships with clinicians, and both patient and provider satisfac- tion. 25 Several authors have reported that patients had signicantly more distressing feelings toward clinicians they felt delivered the news in an inappropriate manner. 25 Practicing physicians and residents have been shown to lack both condence and skill in performing this basic clinical task. 69 A number of factors can contribute to this discomfort, such as feeling responsible for patients misfor- tune, perceptions of failure, unresolved feelings about death and dying, concerns about patients responses to the news, and clinicians concerns about their own emotional responses to the circumstances. 7 Another contribution to low condence and discomfort in this task is that the majority of practicing physicians have reported having received no formal training in effectively communicating bad news. 6,10,11 Thus, until recently, most practitioners learned to give patients bad news through trial and error and perhaps by observing role models during their training. Because negative role models for giving bad news are common, 6 relying on experience and role-modeling may result in communication patterns that do not meet patient needs rather than in effective approaches to this task. There- fore, teaching the skills for delivering bad news increases the likelihood that physicians will learn how to deliver bad news effectively. Much has been written about the skills necessary for effective delivery of difcult news, including extensive re- views of the literature and creation of consensus guidelines for this practice. 2,3,7,12,13 In the literature specically focus- ing on educational interventions, several useful content models have been developed and implemented in both un- Dr. Rosenbaum is assistant professor of family medicine and Dr. Lobas is professor of pediatrics, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine; Dr. Ferguson is associate professor of community and behavioral health, College of Public Health. All are at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Rosenbaum, 1204 MEB, Uni- versity of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52245; e-mail: marcy-rosenbaum@uiowa.edu. AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 107 dergraduate and graduate settings. For example, the SPIKES model (setting, perception, invitation, knowledge, empathy, summary and strategy) developed by Buckman 7 for delivering difcult news is used in many medical schools (see Table 1). In this article, we review published reports (based on Medline searches) of strategies that have been used to teach effective delivery of bad news to medical students and resi- dents.* We describe available models and offer our opinions based on our experiences and on our review of the broader medical education literature on the advantages and disad- vantages of each strategy (see Table 2). We also discuss ndings from evaluations of these models. This article pro- vides a guide to medical educators who are initiating or rening curriculum for medical students and residents to learn this essential and important communication task. Based on our review of the literature, we conclude that, optimally, any curriculum should include a model for effec- tive delivery of bad news (e.g., SPIKES), and opportunities for learners to discuss relevant issues, and practice and receive feedback on their skills. Potential strategies for pro- viding education in bad-news delivery include lectures, small-group discussions, role-playing with peers and stan- dardized patients (SPs), and teaching in the context of patient care. STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING SKILLS FOR DELIVERING BAD NEWS Didactic Approaches In a comprehensive review published in 1997, Billings and Block found that lectures were the most widely used strategy for teaching end-of-life content in the medical curriculum, under which bad-news delivery is often addressed. 14 In a lecture on delivering bad news described in one report, residents learned death notication skills as part of an advanced cardiac life support course. 15 This lecture focused on methods of notication, understanding grief and after- notication issues. We found no other published reports of a sole reliance on lectures to teach learners about delivering difcult news. Several studies have discussed using interac- tive lecture formats to convey basic information and as a catalyst for discussion and skills practice in subsequent small- group sessions. 1619 In one example, two faculty provided an interactive lecture on delivering difcult news. 16 They in- volved the audience and role-played both poor and effective encounters, using elements of the model described by Buck- man. 7 Trigger videotapes, showing dramatized bad-news en- counters, can also be used in this process. 19 After each demonstration, the audience was asked to identify effective and noneffective behaviors on the part of the clinician, based on the patients communication needs. Then steps in effec- tive delivery of bad news (see Table 1) were presented in detail while referring to both case examples. In an alternate approach, an audience member was asked to volunteer to give bad news to a SP. For a student audience, a scenario that required little medical knowledge was pro- vided. For a more advanced audience (residents and practic- ing clinicians), volunteers were asked to identify a typical situation. As this example shows, a spontaneous demonstra- tion has the advantage of being perceived as more genuine. 20 In addition, learners in the audience can more easily imagine themselves in the volunteers position and ponder what they would do in a similar circumstance. The disadvantage is that some common ineffective or effective behaviors will be left out if they are not scripted. Several education programs have used speaker panels to present information about delivering bad news. 10,17,21 In one example, parents of children in whom cancer had been diagnosed described their responses and needs in relation to * We limited this review to models of bad news education described in published articles indexed in Medline. Attention should be drawn to the availability of descriptions of other models for bad news education in the End of Life/Palliative Education Resource Center (EPERC) Online Data- base, managed by the Medical College of Wisconsin. This database (www. eperc.org) provides peer-reviewed descriptions of curricula focused on delivering bad news and other end-of-life communication skills, and is a useful resource for persons interested in developing or enhancing education in these areas. Table 1 The SPIKES Protocol for Delivering Bad News to Patients* Step Description of Task Setting Establish patient rapport by creating an appropriate setting that provides for privacy, patient comfort, uninterrupted time, setting at eye level, and inviting signicant other(s) (if desired). Perception Elicit the patients perception of his or her problem. Invitation Obtain the patients invitation to disclose the details of the medical condition. Knowledge Provide knowledge and information to the patient. Give information in small chunks, check for understanding, and frequently avoid medical jargon. Empathize Empathize and explore emotions expressed by the patient. Summary and strategy Provide a summary of what you said and negotiate a strategy for treatment or follow-up. *From 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;86:88797. Baile et al.s protocol was adapted from Buckman R. How to Break Bad News: A Guide For Healthcare Professionals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 108 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D bad news, and they elded questions from the audience. 17 In another example, a panel of clinicians discussed their ap- proaches to delivering bad news and described the challenges they had faced. 10 The main advantage of lectures is that they take minimal time and faculty resources to deliver content to a wide audience. However, they allow for only limited assessment of learner needs, limited discussion of issues, and no chance for practice and renement of the skills discussed. Small-Group Discussions Reported interventions using small-group discussion sessions for teaching delivery of difcult news have included trigger tapes, demonstrations, case descriptions, or presession read- ings to generate discussion (see Table 3). 2024 These tools are used in a manner similar to didactic approaches but include opportunity for learners to discuss the issues raised. For example, during a one-hour case conference in internal medicine, a student or faculty member was invited to give bad news to a SP in front of the group as a catalyst for discussion during the session. 20 In another intervention, during two-hour sessions with groups of 1618 second-year medical students, group members discussed their perceptions of bad-news tasks and challenges, watched two videotapes on delivering bad news, and then interacted with a handicapped child and his or her parents, or a patient with cancer. This approach is particularly innovative in including actual pa- tients as part of the small group discussion. 22 Although small-group discussions give learners an oppor- tunity to discuss their concerns more deeply and explore their reactions, these discussions can require more faculty time than do lectures to reach the same number of learners, and there is no opportunity for skills practice and feedback. Small Groups with Peer Role-Playing Some small-group interventions include giving learners an opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their skills through peer role-play exercises following discussion of basic bad-news delivery issues. 2,10,17,25,26 Some interventions have Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Strategies for Teaching Medical Students and Residents Skills for Delivering Bad News Strategy Advantages Disadvantages Didactic approaches Presents core concepts to large numbers of learners efciently Little opportunity for discussion Minimal faculty time and resources No opportunity for practice and feedback Learners are anonymous Opportunity for efcient use of skills demonstration and use of speaker panels can be done efciently Small-group discussion Opportunity to discuss issues, skills, and concerns No opportunity for practice and feedback Faculty time intensive Small-group, peer role-play Opportunity to discuss issues, skills and concerns Variable ability of learners to portray patients Skills practice with feedback Faculty time intensive Insight into patient perspective Small-group standardized patient role-play Multiple scenarios show range of approaches and patient responses Peer performance anxiety Standardized patients and faculty time intensive Skills practice with feedback from faculty, peers, and standardized patients Less realistic than one-to-one standardized patient encounter More realistic than peer role-play One-to-one standardized patient encounters Skills practice with feedback from standardized patients or faculty More realistic than group encounters No group discussion No exposure to different approaches and patient responses Faculty or standardized patient intensive Teachable moments in clinical settings Actual context of patient care Clinical time restraints Observation, demonstration, and feedback Patient privacy AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 109 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D Table 3 Summary of Literature on Strategies for Teaching Medical Students and Residents Skills for Delivering Bad News to Patients* Format Authors Level of Learner Strategies Assessment Measures/Results Lecture Pollack 1999 15 PGY One-hour lecture on death notication Design: Random assignment to lecture or nonlecture group and all participated in SP death-notication encounter Measures: SP global rating Results: Lecture group did signicantly better than nonlecture group Small-group discussion Edinger et al. 1999 20 MS3 Demonstration SP role-play Not available Romm 2002 21 Obstetrics/ Gynecology PGY Panel of parents Group discussion Learner satisfaction Knox et al. 1989 22 MS2 Trigger videos Discussion with family of disabled child Demonstration cancer diagnosis role-play Learner satisfaction three months and 18 months after the seminar McNeilly et al. 2001 23 MS3 Presentation of Buckman model Trigger videos Application of model to videos Design: Pre/post knowledge and attitude Measures: Students asked to name six steps in Buckman model and if they had a plan for breaking bad news Results: Signicant improvement in bad news knowledge and attitude after the seminar Angelos et al. 1999 24 Surgery PGY Small-group discussion Limited role-play with prepared cases Video review Design: Pre/post condence questionnaire and learner satisfaction Measure: Self-assessed condence in explaining bad news Results: No signicant difference before and after the seminar Small-group peer role- play Vetto et al. 1999 10 MS12 Self-study readings Clinician panel Group discussion Written case-based peer role-play Design: Comparison of objective structured clinical examination scores from intervention and nonintervention groups Measures: SP-rated knowledge and humanistic skills and faculty-rated humanistic skills Results: Intervention group did signicantly better on humanistic skills with no signicant difference on knowledge Morgan et al. 1996 17 Pediatrics PGY1 Didactic Panel of parents Learner satisfaction Peer role-play with resident-generated cases Magnani et al. 2002 25 MS2 Clinical incidents Trigger videos Learner satisfaction Written case based peer role-play, three cases Reection questions Ungar et al. 2002 26 PGY2 14 sessions, 90 minutes each Learner satisfaction Group discussion Written case-based peer role-play Video review AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 110 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D Table 3 (Continued) Format Authors Level of Learner Strategies Assessment Measures/Results Small-group Rosenbaum et al. MS3 Lecture/demonstration Design: Pre/post questionnaire SP role-play 2002 16 SP role-play with others watching, ve cases Measures: Self-assessed comfort in delivering bad news in different situations Results: Signicant increase in comfort after the session Garg et al. 1997 18 MS3 Video critique Design: Pre/post questionnaire Small-group exercises Peer role-play SP role-play (Four cases chosen out of 12 possible) Measures: Self-assessment of whether students had a plan for approaching delivering bad news and if felt competent to do so Results: Signicant increases posttest on both measures Cushing et al. 1995 27 MS45 Discussion Design: Pre/post questionnaire Video critique Peer role-play SP role-play Measures: Students were asked to give level of condence in specic bad-news situations and list as many things a clinician can do to help recipients when giving bad news Results: Signicant increases in condence level and longer, more comprehensive list of steps in effective bad news Van Winkle et al. 1998 28 MS4 Discussion Learner satisfaction SP role-play with others watching, three cases Tolle et al. 1989 29 PGY1 SP role-play with learners consulting as team Learner satisfaction Group feedback Kahn et al. 2001 30 MS3 SP role-play with four learners taking turns on same case Group feedback Discussion Design: Pre/post self-efcacy questionnaire Measure: Self-assessment of I am comfortable giving bad news to patients Results: Signicant increase in self-efcacy Fortin et al. 2002 31 MS2 Mini-lecture Learner satisfaction SP role-play with others watching Feedback Serwint et al. 2002 32 PGY2 All day seminar Learner satisfaction, use of techniques Video triggers Self-assessed 18 months after the seminar SP role-play with others watching, two cases Lectures One-on-one SP encounters Coletti et al. 2001 33 MS3 Reading packet SP with feedback Design: Comparison between SP encounter and non-SP encounter groups on end-of-rotation clinical practice examination bad-news SP station Measures: SP ratings on numbered item evaluation form addressing content and communication skills Results: SP encounter group did signicantly better on the examination Greenberg et al. 1999 34 Pediatrics PGY23, fellows SP encounter with feedback SP encounter without feedback Design: Comparison across two SP encounters, before and after feedback. Measures: I. SP ratings on content checklist, Gibb trust scale, and National Board of Medical Examiners Patient Perception Questionnaire. II. Resident self-assessed comfort level pre/post Results: Signicant improvement in content categories of communication and follow-up. Signicant differences in counseling skills. No signicant differences in Patient Perception Questionnaire continued on next page AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 111 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D used preprepared cases in which one learner portrayed the patient and the other acted as the clinician delivering the news. 25,26 Preprepared cases can be especially appropriate for learners who have little actual experience to draw on. In one example, second-year medical students were introduced to issues about delivering bad news through clinicians describ- ing their experiences and then the students critiqued trigger videotapes. Students then role-played detailed, written bad- news encounters, and answered a series of questions. 25,26 Some interventions for higher-level learners use learner- generated cases. These cases can be elicited either before or during the actual session. For example, one intervention based a seminar on cases written by the institutions own residents. 17 Using cases generated during sessions, group members identied a clinical experience they would like to reenact (often one they felt did not go as well as they would have liked). 11,26 This approach allows participants to address concerns they feel they need to work on, making it especially relevant for them. In one approach to learner-generated cases, the learner provides medical information, patient circumstance, patient reaction, and clinicians approach to the encounter. Then, a group member portrays the patient, and the clinicianlearner delivers the news in a different way than he or she did in the actual encounter, applying some of the concepts already discussed in the group. The group provides feedback about ineffective and effective behaviors demonstrated in the en- counter and alternative ways to approach the situation. Alternatively, the clinician whose case is being role-played takes on the role of the patient, and another group member takes on the role of the clinician. In this conguration, the person who generated the case gains insight into both a different way to approach the case and what the patient may have been experiencing in this encounter. In both situations, Table 3 (Continued) Format Authors Level of Learner Strategies Assessment Measures/Results Goldschmidt et al. 1987 35 MS4, Family medicine PGY1 SP encounter with feedback SP encounter Learner satisfaction Rosenbaum et al. 1996 36 PGY1 SP encounter with faculty feedback Design: Pre/post questionnaire Measure: Self-assessed rating of condence in giving bad news Results: Signicantly less condence after one encounter Jewett et al. 1982 37 Pediatrics PGY23 One SP encounter with feedback at beginning of rotation Design: Posttest control group design, comparison of performance before training and after One SP encounter with feedback at end of rotation Measures: SP rating of critical information giving, clarity of information, and interpersonal skills Results: Signicant improvement in critical information, general improvement in clarity, and improvement in interpersonal skills, especially listening and partnering with patients Roth et al. 2002 38 Medicine PGY1 SP encounter with feedback from SP and observing faculty Learner satisfaction Pan et al. 2002 39 MS3 Small-group session using role-play, reection, and discussion. Learner satisfaction SP encounter with feedback from faculty Clinical teaching Muir et al. 1999 40 MS4 Didactic Rounds Learner satisfaction Bedside modeling Videotaped SP *MS, medical student; PGY, postgraduate year (resident); SP, standardized patient. We did not report measure for studies that relied on learner satisfaction. All authors reported high ratings of interventions by learners. Assessment methods are explained only to the extent they were clearly explained in the original article. AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 112 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D if groups of three are formed then one person can observe and provide feedback. In summary, role-playing allows learners to practice their skills, receive feedback, and gain insight into the patients perspective; it also generates discussion. Peer role-playing is less demanding of resources and organizational needs than role-playing with SPs. Disadvantages to role-playing are variation in learners abilities to portray patients in a realistic manner, familiarity among peers, and more faculty time required than less interactive sessions. Small Groups Using Standardized Patients The majority of published educational interventions that focus on delivering bad news used SPs who can be trained to portray patient responses to bad news in a realistic and standardized manner. 16,18,2732 These interventions included portrayal of multiple scenarios, giving most (if not all) participants a chance to practice delivering difcult news. Using multiple scenarios in bad-news role-playing sessions can provide insight into the common and contrasting patient responses and skills needed in different situations and also allows for exposure to different learners approaches to the task. 16 For example, two reported interventions with medical students used a combination of preprepared cases and stu- dent-generated cases in role-plays with SPs during small- group sessions (four to ten students each). 18,27 Each student role-played with the SP, and then the group proceeded with feedback and discussion. Some interventions have used closed-circuit television with small groups, allowing learners to watch as individual group members deliver bad news to a SP in a separate room. 16,28 Closed-circuit observation sys- tems can provide a more realistic context than can perform- ing directly in front of the group and the setting allows the observers to comment as the encounter proceeds. In one example, each student in a small group of students delivered difcult news to a different SP while being observed by others over closed circuit television. 16 In another example, four to six students observed over closed circuit television as three other students each took a turn delivering difcult news in a variety of situations. Each scenario was followed by feedback and discussion with a faculty facilitator, the students and the SP. In this conguration, not all participants may practice delivering the news but they are exposed to multiple ap- proaches and varying scenarios. Use of SPs in role-play situations gives learners an oppor- tunity to practice their skills with skilled and nonfamiliar patients and receive feedback from peers, SPs, and faculty. This role-playing, however, requires intense use of both faculty and SP time and audiovisual support resources if closed-circuit television is used. In addition, having to per- form in front of ones peers can be intimidating for some and creates a less realistic situation than a one-to-one encounter with SPs. One-to-One Learning with Standardized Patients Several schools have reported using one-to-one encounters between learners and SPs as their primary approach to teaching delivery of difcult news. 3339 This approach has most often been used with learners who have already had patient care experiences. In some approaches, the SP was the main teacher during this intervention. In one example, in two SP encounters students learned about delivering bad news during surgery and obstetrics/gynecology rotations. 33 After reviewing written materials on techniques for deliver- ing difcult news, each student delivered difcult news (rec- tal cancer diagnosis or pregnancy loss) to the SP, who afterward provided feedback to the learner on strengths and suggestions for improvement. Using this approach minimizes demand on faculty time but requires more intensive use of SP time for training and teaching sessions. Other examples reported using faculty observers and feed- back in one-to-one simulated sessions. One approach used two SP encounters of providing a cancer diagnosis to train residents and fourth-year students during a family practice rotation. 35 After the second encounter with a SP, faculty members reviewed the videotape with learners and provided feedback on skills improvement. One advantage of this approach is that it provides an opportunity for faculty to observe learners actually delivering news to a patient, albeit a standardized one, which is often difcult for faculty during clinical rotations. One-to-one SP encounters eliminate the discomfort that can accompany role-playing in front of groups and can provide a more clinically realistic encounter. In addition, the time commitment for both learners and faculty is minimized. Disadvantages of this approach are that learners do not have an opportunity to benet from observing multiple approaches and multiple patient responses to bad news. Teachable Moments in Delivering Bad News Although rarely described in the literature, faculty have ample opportunities to teach and reinforce skills for deliver- ing bad news in the direct context of clinical care. These teachable moments can be identied and used in inpatient ward round and outpatient stafng settings. 6,8,19,4042 Before a bad-news encounter, faculty members can discuss concerns and possible approaches to bad-news delivery. They can ask the learner(s) about their experiences and concerns regard- ing delivering bad news, and thus assess their learning needs AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 113 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D and levels of comfort with the task. This also encourages approaching the encounter with a set plan in mind for delivering the news. 18 In addition, learners can ask questions and be queried regarding their perceptions of the patients reactions and needs, as well as the effectiveness of ap- proaches. Providing self-study resources such as articles and videotapes can also be useful for enhancing learning and skill development in these venues. 18 Role modeling and demonstration are important ways trainees can learn and rene their bad-news delivery skills. In a curriculum at our institution, we told third-year medical students that if they found themselves in a position of giving bad news that they were uncomfortable with at their level of training, the students could ask a supervisor to deliver the news while they observed. 16 One of the challenges to bedside teaching of this skill is to maintain patients privacy during this emotionally charged encounter while still being able to teach learners these important skills. Setting aside time outside of rounds with one or two learners is advised, in order to deal with the interaction sensitively and effectively while maximizing the experience for the learners. The patient should be informed of the reason for the learners(s) pres- ence in this type of encounter. If bad news must be delivered during rounds we suggest that the encounter be saved until the end of rounds to avoid time pressure and also allow the attending physician to limit the number of learners that participate. In addition to giving enough time to the patient, this also can allow time immediately after the encounter to process with the learner(s). Observing learners giving difcult news can also allow faculty to provide feedback to improve skills. However, roles of the learner(s) and the attending physician need to be clearly dened before a bad-news encounter. For example, with a residentphysician who has his or her own patient pool, the attending can offer to accompany the resident as a resource if he or she cannot answer patient questions. The resident can inform the patient of the attendings role as an observer. The challenge in observing learners with patients is for the attending physician to resist the temptation to dom- inate the encounter and have the patient focus on the attending physician. However, with observation, feedback on actual performance can be even more effective than giving feedback regarding SP encounters. Teaching about bad-news delivery in the context of actual patient care can open the door to identify ways for learners to improve and acknowledge the emotional challenges that ac- company being the bearer of bad news. In addition, faculty can relay both negative and positive outcomes from different ap- proaches they have tried. Finally this approach allows for ap- plication of skills in the context in which they will be used. Potential disadvantages include time constraints for teaching in the clinical setting and concerns about patients privacy. EVALUATION OF TEACHING STRATEGIES The number of published reports evaluating different strate- gies for teaching skills for delivering bad news are limited and the majority limit their assessment of the impact of educa- tional interventions to learner satisfaction and condence rather than assessing change in learners actual behavior (see Table 3). However, the following evidence points to the advantage of using some strategies over others. We found only one report specically that evaluated a lecture for teaching bad-news delivery. 15 In a prospective, randomized study, 18 of 36 residents received a lecture on death notication. Members in the lecture group performed signicantly better in a death-notication encounter with a standardized survivor. Although this report indicates a lec- ture can have some immediate impact on learners skills for delivering bad news, the literature on teaching communica- tion skills in general and delivering bad news in particular argues against sole reliance on lectures to teach these behav- ioral skills. 13,19,4143 Learners must have an opportunity to practice the skills before they can internalize them. In com- bination with other methods, however, didactic presentation of the principles of delivering bad news can provide impor- tant baseline information for discussion and practice. When using lectures, we encourage teachers to employ more inter- active techniques, such as incorporating demonstrations, role-plays, panels, and audience feedback, as a way to engage the audience and help with retention of information. The majority of reports on small-group activities to teach skills for delivering bad news relied on learner self-assess- ments of condence before and after the intervention, and learner evaluation of the usefulness of the educational activ- ity (see Table 3). 1618,21,24-27,30 Almost all interventions using these assessments reported signicant changes in learner self-condence and high ratings of the usefulness of the training. One study found no signicant differences in condence in delivering bad news after a small-group discus- sion session with residents. 24 The authors postulated that this was due to lack of opportunity for feedback and practice of these skills within the session. The majority of small-group studies indicate that learners desire more training opportu- nities and the opportunity to practice with SPs. 16,22,25,27 Some studies have evaluated the impact of small-group activities on learners knowledge and attitudes. For example, in a pre/post study, learners were able to describe the six steps in Buckmans model for delivering bad news and were more likely to have a plan for giving bad news following a small- group intervention in which learners applied the model to trigger videos. 23 In another pre/post comparison study, learn- ers could provide longer, more comprehensive lists of steps in effective bad-news delivery after small-group, SP sessions than they could before the intervention. We found one study AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 114 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D evaluating the impact of small-group training on learners behaviors. 10 Objective structured clinical examination scores of students who had participated in small-group training and those who had not were compared and the comparison demonstrated signicantly better humanistic behavior scores (e.g., communication and empathy skills) among those stu- dents who had participated in the training sessions. One-to-one learning with SPs allows for simultaneous assessment of actual bad-news delivery behaviors during and after educational interventions. In most of these interven- tions faculty and/or SPs use checklists to identify learners strengths and weaknesses. In two reports, residents partici- pated in encounters with SPs and were provided once with feedback. 35,36 In addition to demonstrating skills in certain areas of bad-news delivery (learners concern for patients, honesty, and appropriate follow-up plans), faculty observers of these encounters identied areas for improvement, such as providing too much data and scientic information during the encounter. 35 Studies suggest the limitation of only pro- viding one opportunity for learners to practice their skills and receive feedback without having the chance to practice applying behaviors recommended in the feedback. For exam- ple, one study 36 found that residents ratings of their own abilities were actually lower after a one-time encounter with feedback than they were before the encounter. In contrast, reports by others 33,34 demonstrate improvement of learner skills when compared across two simulated encounters. For example, one of these studies 33 found signicant differences in content and communication skills between students who had received training and feedback through previous simu- lated encounters for delivering bad news and those who had not received training and feedback. We found no published reports that systematically evalu- ated the effectiveness of learning about delivering bad news in the less formal settings of inpatient wards and outpatient clinics. A few studies have reported student and resident experiences in bad-news delivery in the context of patient care. Two recent reports 42,44 found that many students and residents received little guidance from or opportunity to debrief with faculty around these bad-news encounters. They also reported that students and residents desired this guid- ance and found discussion, observation, and feedback bene- cial when provided in these contexts. CONCLUSIONS There are a variety of approaches available for teaching skills in bad-news delivery. All of the interventions we describe here have been rated highly by learners and have demon- strated impact on learner self-condence and, in some cases, learner knowledge and behaviors. Adult learning is best facilitated through instruction that is interactive and learner-centered, draws on previous expe- rience and knowledge, is relevant to the learners practice, allows the learner to apply what is being learned in a timely manner, and includes the opportunity for feedback and reection. Based on these adult learning principles and ndings in the education literature on delivering bad news, we conclude that the most effective interventions present basic steps to effectively delivering bad news, and provide opportunities for learners to discuss concerns, practice, and receive feedback on their skills. Our recommendation of best practices in teaching skills for delivering bad news echoes recommendations made by others. 6,19 In addition, evaluations that include observation of actual behaviors point to the benet of learners having more than one opportunity to practice and receive feedback so that they can try out new behaviors they may not have demonstrated in their rst encounter. It is striking that in evaluation of many of the interventions, learners indicated a desire for more training and opportunities for practice. In addition, researchers need to examine the impact of educa- tional interventions on learners actual behaviors and learn- ers long-term retention of these skills. Measures have been developed specically for assessing skills for delivering bad news that could be used for this purpose. 9 This review demonstrates there are many models for teaching skills for delivering bad news; ones choice will depend on resources available in terms of faculty, SPs, and curricular time. In addition, deciding when to provide this training to learners will depend on available resources, but the training is likely to be most effective if it is provided early and often. As suggested by Kurtz et al., 43 following a helical model where communication skills are reiterated and rein- forced throughout medical training is essential to maximum skill development. Thus, prior to or early in their direct patient care experiences, medical students can benet from training by having an opportunity to practice giving bad news in a safe, simulated environment before having to deliver bad news with actual patients and families. Early training also gives students a framework in which to critically evaluate role models they may observe giving bad news on the wards and in the clinics. As students and residents have increased patient-care responsibilities, new and more com- plex aspects of bad-news delivery can arise. It has also been argued that students communication skills tend to degrade over the four years of medical school if the skills are not reinforced. 43 Faculty who have the skill to recognize and capture these teachable moments in the context of clinical rotations can help learners discuss these issues and hone their skills. At the resident level, formal instruction and practice in delivering bad news guarantees that all residents, regard- AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 115 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D less of where they went to medical school, are equipped to adequately perform this task. In recommending more faculty-intensive educational in- terventions to teach skills for delivering bad news (e.g., small groups, role-plays with feedback, clinical teaching), it follows that faculty also need and deserve training in providing this instruction. Several successful models have been imple- mented to train practicing physicians, some for the rst time, to deliver bad news. 11,45,46 Thus, training will help improve physicians own interactions with patients, as well as their ability to teach others in formal settings and to identify learning opportunities in the context of patient care. Learning to deliver bad news effectively is an important part of providing good medical care, maintaining productive relationships with patients, and enhancing patient and phy- sician satisfaction. Through educational interventions, the bad-news encounter can be made less distressing for both clinician and patient. To incorporate effective behaviors for delivering bad news into practice, we encourage medical education programs to commit the necessary resources to provide a comprehensive approach to teaching this task, one that includes multiple sessions and opportunities for demon- stration, reection, discussion, practice, and feedback. We are grateful to Dr. Jerold Woodhead for supporting our implementation and renements of the curriculum for bad-news delivery and assisting in thinking through the issues involved in this review. We are also grateful to Dr. John F. Wilson for inspiration and assistance in development and implementation the curriculum for bad-news delivery. In addition, we want to thank Dr. Paul Casella for his editorial assistance. REFERENCES 1. Bor R, Miller R, Goldman E, Scher I. The meaning of bad news in HIV disease. Couns Psych Q. 1993;6:6980. 2. Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW. Breaking bad news 1: current best advice for clinicians. Behav Med. 1998;24:539. 3. Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL. Breaking bad news: a review of the literature. JAMA. 1996;276:496502. 4. Falloweld LJ. Giving sad and bad news. Lancet. 1993;341:4768. 5. Maguire P. Breaking bad news. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24:18891. 6. Falloweld LJ. Things to consider when teaching doctors how to deliver good, bad and sad news. Med Teach. 1996;18:2730. 7. Buckman R. How to Break Bad News: A Guide For Healthcare Profes- sionals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. 8. Dosanjh S, Barnes J, Bhandari M. Barriers to breaking bad news among medical and surgical residents. Med Educ. 2001;35:197205. 9. Eggly S, Afonso N, Rojas G, Baker M, Cardozo L, Roberson RS. An assessment of residents competence in the delivery of bad news to patients. Acad Med. 1997;72:3979. 10. Vetto JT, Elder NC, Tofer WL, Fields SA. Teaching medical students to give bad news: does formal instruction help? J Cancer Educ. 1999; 14:137. 11. 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;86:88797. 12. Ellis PM, Tattersall MHN. How should doctors communicate the diagnosis of cancer to patients? Ann Med. 1999;31:33641. 13. Rabow MW, McPhee SJ. Beyond breaking bad news: how to help patients who suffer. West J Med. 1999;171:2603. 14. Billings JA, Block S. Palliative care in undergraduate medical educa- tion. Status report and future directions. JAMA 1997;278:7338 15. Pollack M. Educating new resident physicians in death notication. Acad Med. 1999;74:721. 16. Rosenbaum ME, Kreiter C. Teaching delivery of bad news using expe- riential sessions with standardized patients. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14: 1449. 17. Morgan ER, Winter RJ. Teaching communication skills: an essential part of residency training. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:638 42. 18. Garg A, Buckman R, Kason Y. Teaching medical students how to break bad news. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;156:115964. 19. Harden RM. Twelve tips on teaching and learning how to break bad news. Med Teach. 1996;18:2758. 20. Edinger W, Robertson J, Skeel J, Schoonmaker J. Using standardized patients to teach clinical ethics. Med Educ Online. 1999;4:6. 21. Romm J. Breaking bad news in obstetrics and gynecology: educational conference for resident physicians. Arch Women Ment Health. 2002; 5:1779. 22. Knox JD, Thomson GM. Breaking bad news: medical undergraduate communication skills teaching and learning. Med Educ. 1989;23:258 61. 23. McNeilly DP, Wengel SP. The ER seminar: teaching psychothera- peutic techniques to medical students. Acad Psych. 2001;25:193200. 24. Angelos P, DaRosa DA, Derossis AM, Kim B. Medical ethics curricu- lum for surgical residents: results of a pilot project. Surgery. 1999;126: 7017. 25. Magnani JW, Minor MA, Aldrich JM. Care at the end of life: a novel curriculum module implemented by medical students. Acad Med. 2002; 77:2928. 26. Ungar L, Alperin M, Amiel GE, Beharier Z, Ries S. Breaking bad news: structured training for family medicine residents. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:638. 27. Cushing AM, Jones A. Evaluation of a breaking bad news course for medical students. Med Educ. 1995;29:4305. 28. Van Winkle NW, Rosenbaum M, Redwood S. Improving fourth-year students complex interviewing skills. Acad Med. 1998;73:590. 29. Tolle SW, Cooney TG, Hickam DH. A program to teach humanistic skills for notifying survivors of a patients death. Acad Med. 1989;506. 30. Kahn MJ, Sherer K, Alper AB, et al. Using standardized patients to teach end-of-life skills to clinical clerks. J Cancer Educ. 2001;16:1635. 31. Fortin AH, Haeseler FD, Angoff N, et al. Teaching pre-clinical medical students an integrated approach to medical interviewing: half-day work- shops using actors. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:7048. 32. Serwint JR, Rutherford LE, Hutton N, et al. I learned that no death is routine: description of a death and bereavement seminar for pediatrics residents. Acad Med. 2002;77:27884. 33. Coletti L, Gruppen L, Barclay M, Stern D. Teaching students to break bad news. Am J Surg. 2001;182:203. 34. Greenberg LW, Ochsenschlager D, ODonnell R, Mastruserio J, Cohen GJ. Communicating bad news: a pediatric departments evaluation of a simulated intervention. Pediatrics. 1999;103:12107. 35. Goldschmidt RH, Hess PA. Telling patients the diagnosis is cancer: a teaching module. Fam Med. 1987;19:3024. 36. Rosenbaum ME, Wilson HJ, Sloan DA. A clinical instruction module for delivering bad news. Acad Med. 1996;71:529. AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 116 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D 37. Jewett LS, Greenberg LW, Champion LAA, et al. The teaching of crisis counseling skills to pediatric residents: a one-year study. Pediatrics. 1982;70:90711. 38. Roth CS, Watson KV, Harris IB. A Communication Assessment and Skill-Building Exercise (CASE) for rst-year residents. Acad Med. 2002;77:7467. 39. Pan CX, Soriano RP, Fischberg DJ. Palliative care module within a required geriatrics clerkship: taking advantage of existing partnerships. Acad Med. 2002;77:9367. 40. Muir JC, Krammer LM, von Gunten CF. Training physicians in pallia- tive care. Generations. 1999;23:915. 41. Makoul G. Medical student and resident perspectives on delivering bad news. Acad Med. 1998;73:S35S37. 42. Wear D. Face-to-face with it: medical students narratives about their end-of-life education. Acad Med. 2002;77:2717. 43. Kurtz S, Silverman J, Draper J. Teaching and Learning Communica- tion Skills in Medicine. Oxford, England: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1998. 44. Orlander JD, Fincke BG, Hermanns D, Johnson GA. Medicine resi- dents rst clearly remembered experiences giving bad news. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:82540. 45. Miller SJ, Hope T, Talbot DC. The development of a structured rating schedule (the BAS) to assess skills in breaking bad news. Br J Cancer. 1999;80:792800. 46. Faulkner A, Argent J, Jones A, OKeeffe C. Improving the skills of doctors giving distressing information. Med Educ. 1995;29:3037. Teaching and Learning Moments NOT JUST A REGULAR CUSTOMER As a third-year resident at University of Illinois at Chicago, Mary was a regular customer. She was a frail white woman in her early 50s with grace in her features, but suffered from cirrhosis due to alcoholism. Mary required repeated admissions for encephalopathy and variceal bleedings. In one of her many admissions to the intensive care unit, I had to evaluate her. Seeing her repeatedly as an intern and a resident, it seemed routine work. Her husband of more than 30 years recited her familiar medical history to me and I thought she was in her usual encephalopathic state. As I proceeded to examine her, a small grin appeared on her face. As I was doing a routine head and neck examination, I heard her whisper weakly, You have a nice smell doctor. I didnt know what to say and was stunned by the comment. In that moment, I realized I had lost the humanistic part of my patient during the years of seeing her repeatedly. In our routine work and dealings with patients with chronic diseases, physicians tend to develop a not again approach to these patients and ignore the fact that these chronic cases appreciate life and its subtletiesjust like everyone else. A fresh smell of a person had made such an impact amongst the aroma of alcohol, Betadine, and other chemicals in the hospital. Marys surprising comment changed my attitude towards patients with chronic diseases. I learned to separate the disease and the human being in my patients more easily. This also reminded me of the quote: Patients are evaluating you while you are evaluating the patients. 1 Over the next few months, Mary continued to be admitted and I continued to treat her until she died of massive variceal bleeding. Not only did Mary change my perspective of managing patients with chronic illnesses, but her evaluation of me gave her comfort and a smile. I am proud that I was able to give her that moment of comfort. I continue to try to bring comfort and smiles to all of my patients, especially my regular customers. NAUMAN TARIF, MD Dr. Tarif is assistant professor of medicine and consultant nephrologist, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. REFERENCE 1. Orient JM, Sapira JD. Sapiras Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis. 1st ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998:9. AC A D E M I C ME D I C I N E , VO L . 7 9 , NO . 2 / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 117 S K I L L S F O R DE L I V E R I N G BA D NE W S , C O N T I N U E D