Single cases from multiple perspectives: a qualitative study comparing the experiences of patients, patients' caregivers, surgeons, and nurses when bad news is delivered about cancer.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative literature on the experiences of those delivering and receiving bad news about cancer has revealed what these parties consider important during the process across many different patient cases. The current study aims to add to this understanding by employing a "linked case" study design to directly compare the perspectives of patients, their caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) involved in a series of single-patient cases of breaking bad news. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 participants (5 patients, 4 caregivers, 2 surgeons, and 2 nurses) who formed 5 linked cases. Interviews were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis and directly compared within each linked case. RESULTS: Analyses identified 2 main superordinate themes. The first labeled "accurately perceiving and responding to needs," included HCPs recognizing and responding to patients' and caregivers' individual emotional and informational needs. The second labeled "carers fulfilling necessary roles," identified the various roles HCPs and patients' caregivers took to satisfactorily meet patients' needs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the importance of HCPs accurately perceiving and responding to patients' and caregivers' various needs and caregivers ability and willingness to fulfilling support roles in a way that aligns with their own resources and patients' needs. This highlights the value of HCPs developing and applying interpersonal skills within bad news encounters, working as a team, and exploring caregivers' resources for patient support.

The experiences of patients and their family members when receiving bad news about cancer: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative meta-synthesis explored the subjective experiences of patients and their family members when receiving bad news about cancer, with a focus on what was important to them during this process and making future recommendations. METHODS: A search of five electronic databases yielded 587 different records that resulted in 88 articles assessed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. With the supplement of four additional records, 29 articles were analysed using thematic synthesis. A quality appraisal checklist was used to provide further information about the included articles. RESULTS: Patients and family members experienced receiving bad news as a process that involved three phases, labelled as follows: "preparation", "delivery", and "adjusting and coping". The "preparation" phase had four themes: the setting, developing a relationship, knowing the patient, and forewarning. Four themes were identified during the "delivery" phase: emotional reactions, empathy not sympathy, active participation, and understanding. "Adjusting and coping" comprised four themes: hope, holistic support, being a protector, and ongoing relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving bad news is a significant experience for patients and family members. They want bad news delivered in an appropriate setting, in a manner consistent with their personal preferences, and have their psychological needs attended to within the context of an established relationship. Healthcare professionals can be assisted to deliver bad news in the best way possible by additional training and their workplace institutions providing quiet, private rooms, and sufficient time. Future research is needed to better understand family members' experiences and needs.

Training Direct-Care Staff to Provide Communication Intervention to Adults With Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to summarize and evaluate studies on training direct-care staff to provide communication intervention to adults with intellectual disability. METHOD: Systematic searches identified 22 studies. These were summarized and evaluated in terms of (a) participants; (b) settings; (c) training aims and procedures; (d) research designs; (e) reliability, integrity, and social validity; (f) outcomes; (g) generalization and follow-up; and (h) certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 437 staff and 254+ adults with intellectual disability participated. Staff training most frequently involved combinations of verbal instruction, role play, modeling, practice, and feedback. Reliability was assessed in 18 studies with acceptable standards for most of these studies. Treatment integrity and social validity were assessed in 1 and 3 studies, respectively, with positive outcomes. Generalization and maintenance were assessed in 5 and 8 studies, respectively, with predominantly positive outcomes. Most studies reported positive outcomes for staff and positive or mixed outcomes for the adults with intellectual disability. Certainty of evidence was rated as conclusive in 1 study, suggestive in 14 studies, and inconclusive in 7 studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that direct-care staff can be taught to provide effective communication intervention to adults with intellectual disability. Professionals involved in providing training and support to direct-care staff could expect positive outcomes from multicomponent training programs that include opportunities for practice and feedback.