The Disclosure of Bad News Over the Phone vs. in Person and its Association with Psychological Distress: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Communicating bad news such as a new cancer diagnosis to patients may have a major impact on their well-being. We investigated differences in patients' psychological distress due to the disclosure of bad news by telephone compared to in person in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We included all studies that investigated anxiety, depressive or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in adult patients in whom bad news by telephone compared to in person were disclosed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from the inception of each database to October 18, 2022. We included randomized and non-randomized trials. RESULTS: We screened 5944 studies and included 11 studies in the qualitative analysis and 9 in the meta-analyses, including four randomized controlled trials. Overall, the quality of studies was moderate to good. There was no difference regarding psychological distress when bad news was disclosed by telephone compared to in person with similar symptom levels of anxiety (3 studies, 285 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.10 [95% CI -0.15 to 0.35]), depression (3 studies, 284 participants; SMD 0.10 [95% CI -0.30 to 0.49]), and PTSD (2 studies, 171 participants; SMD -0.01 [95% CI -0.48 to 0.36]). Results were similar for satisfaction with care. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis found no difference regarding psychological distress regardless if bad news were disclosed by telephone or in person, but there were overall only few and heterogeneous studies with a small number of eligible patients. The findings suggest that the modality of disclosure might play a secondary role and the way in which the bad news are communicated might be more important.

Bilateral acute renal cortical necrosis after a dog bite: case report.

BACKGROUND: Capnocytophaga canimorsus is a Gram-negative capnophilic rod and part of dogs/cats' normal oral flora. It can be transmitted by bites, scratches, or even by contact of saliva with injured skin. Asplenic patients and patients with alcohol abuse are at particular risk for fulminant C. canimorsus sepsis. However, also immunocompetent patients can have a severe or even fatal infection. This is the first case of a severe C. canimorsus infection in an immunocompromised host complicated by acute renal cortical necrosis with a "reverse rim sign" in contrast-enhanced computed tomography on hospital admission. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 44-year functionally asplenic patient after an allogeneic stem cell transplantation, who presented with septic shock after a minor dog bite injury 4 days prior. Because of abdominal complaints, epigastric pain with local peritonism, and radiological gallbladder wall thickening, an abdominal focus was suspected after the initial work-up. The patient underwent emergent open cholecystectomy, but the clinical suspicion of abdominal infection was not confirmed. Septic shock was further complicated by cardiomyopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. As a causative pathogen, C. canimorsus could be isolated. The clinical course was complicated by permanent hemodialysis and extensive acral necrosis requiring amputation of several fingers and both thighs. CONCLUSION: We present a severe case of a C. canimorsus infection in a functionally asplenic patient after a minor dog bite. The clinical course was complicated by septic shock, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and the need for multiple amputations. In addition, the rare form of acute renal failure - bilateral acute renal cortical necrosis - was visible as "reverse rim sign" on computed tomography scan. This case is an example of the potential disastrous consequences when omitting pre-emptive antibiotic therapy in wounds inflicted by cats and dogs, particularly in asplenic patients.