Improving consultations in oncology: the development of a novel consultation aid.

BACKGROUND: The way in which patients receive bad news in a consultation can have a profound effect in terms of anxiety, depression and subsequent adjustment. Despite investment in well-researched communication skills training and availability of decision-making aids, communication problems in oncology continue to be encountered. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in a large UK Cancer Centre to develop a novel consultation aid that could be used jointly by patients and doctors. Consultations were audio-recorded and both the doctors and the patients were interviewed. We used conversation analysis to analyse the consultation encounter and interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyse the interviews. Key themes were generated to inform the design of the aid. RESULTS: A total of 16 doctors were recruited into the study along with 77 patients. Detailed analysis from 36 consultations identified key themes (including preparation, information exchange, question-asking and decision making), which were subsequently addressed in the design of the paper-based aid. CONCLUSIONS: Using detailed analysis and observation of oncology consultations, we have designed a novel consultation aid that can be used jointly by doctors and patients. It is not tumour-site specific and can potentially be utilised by new and follow-up consultations.

Patient-initiated questions: How can doctors encourage them and improve the consultation process? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the circumstances under which patients initiate direct questions in oncology consultations. DESIGN: Conversation analysis of 47 consultations between oncologists and patients with cancer. SETTING: An oncology clinic at a teaching hospital in the East Midlands. PARTICIPANTS: 16 Oncologists and 67 cancer patients. OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient initiated direct questions. RESULTS: On the whole patients' direct questions are designed to seek specific information regarding, the cancer itself, treatment options or their experience of symptoms. When patients do ask direct questions they typically follow the announcement of test results where some reference to the details of those results, is provided. More specifically, there seems to be a relation between showing the patient their scan/X-ray results, patient involvement and patient-initiated direct questions. Higher levels of patient-initiated direct questions were clustered around occasions where doctors provided information and explanations of test results (12 consultations) sometimes with direct reference to scan or X-ray results (7 consultations). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of careful explanation of diagnostic evidence as a factor contributing to increased patient involvement. More specifically, the findings suggest that, when appropriate, invoking diagnostic evidence (eg, scan or X-ray results) is an effective way of increasing levels of patient question asking. Doctors need to be able to encourage patient question asking to ensure that patients have at their disposal an important means through which they can determine their information needs. Although these results come from a study of oncology consultations, the findings may be transferable to other clinical contexts.

Ethical reflection on the harm in reproductive decision-making.

Advances in reproductive technologies continue to present ethical problems concerning their implementation and use. These advances have preoccupied bioethicists in their bid to gauge our moral responsibilities and obligations when making reproductive decisions. The aim of this discussion is to highlight the importance of a sensibility to differences in moral perspective as part of our ethical inquiry in these matters. Its focal point is the work of John Harris(i), who has consistently addressed the ethical issues raised by advancing reproductive technologies. The discussion is aimed at a central tenet of Harris's position on reproductive decision-making-namely, that in some instances, giving birth to a worthwhile life may cause harm and will therefore be morally wrong. It attempts to spell out some of the implications of Harris's position that the author takes to involve a misplaced generality. To support this claim, some examples are explored that demonstrate the variety of ways in which concepts (such as harm) may manifest themselves as moral considerations within the context of reproductive decision-making. The purpose is to demonstrate that Harris's general conception of the moral limits of reproductive autonomy obscures the issues raised by particular cases, which in themselves may reveal important directions for our ethical inquiry.