Mirza Reza D, Ren Melody, Agarwal Arnav, Guyatt Gordon H
a Department of Medicine , McMaster University.
b Department of Medicine , University of Toronto.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Jan-Mar;10(1):36-43. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1543218. Epub 2018 Dec 31.
Guidelines for breaking bad news are largely directed at and validated in oncology patients, based on expert opinion, and neglect those with other diagnoses. We sought to determine whether existing guidelines for breaking bad news, particularly SPIKES, are consistent with patient preferences across patient populations.
Patients from an online community responded to 5 open-ended and 11 Likert-scale questions identifying their preferences in having bad news delivered. Patient participants received a diagnosis of cancer, lupus, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's disease. Additionally, we surveyed all 14 English-curriculum Canadian medical schools regarding resources used to teach breaking bad news.
Ten of 12 responding schools used the SPIKES model. Preferences of 1337 patients were consistent with the recommendations of SPIKES. There was one exception: Most patients disagree that empathetic physical touch is important and some described apprehension. Responses were consistent across disease states. Content analysis of 220 open-ended patient responses revealed 16 patient-important themes. Themes were largely addressed by the SPIKES guidelines, but five were not: ensuring timely follow-up is planned; offering informational sheets about the diagnosis; offering contact information of support organizations, with some patients preferring patient support groups while others preferring counselors; and conveying a sense of determination to aid the patient through the diagnosis. The four most patient-important components of SPIKES were physicians conveying empathy, taking their time, explaining the diagnosis and its implications, and asking the patient if they understand.
SPIKES is the most commonly taught framework for breaking bad news in Canadian medical schools. This is the first work to demonstrate that the existing guidelines in breaking bad news such as SPIKES largely reflect the perspectives of many patient groups, as assessed by quantitative and qualitative measures. We highlight the most important components of SPIKES to patients and identify five additional suggestions to aid clinicians in breaking bad news.
告知坏消息的指南主要基于专家意见,针对肿瘤患者制定并在该群体中得到验证,而忽视了患有其他疾病的患者。我们试图确定现有的告知坏消息的指南,尤其是SPIKES指南,是否与不同患者群体的偏好一致。
来自一个在线社区的患者回答了5个开放式问题和11个李克特量表问题,以确定他们对接收坏消息的偏好。参与研究的患者被诊断患有癌症、狼疮、肌萎缩侧索硬化症、多发性硬化症、艾滋病毒/艾滋病或帕金森病。此外,我们对加拿大所有14所开设英语课程的医学院进行了调查,了解用于教授告知坏消息的资源情况。
12所做出回应的学校中有10所使用了SPIKES模型。1337名患者的偏好与SPIKES的建议一致。有一个例外:大多数患者不同意共情性身体接触很重要,一些患者表示对此感到担忧。不同疾病状态下的回答是一致的。对220份开放式患者回答的内容分析揭示了16个对患者重要的主题。SPIKES指南在很大程度上涵盖了这些主题,但有五个主题未涵盖:确保计划好及时随访;提供关于诊断的信息表;提供支持组织的联系信息,一些患者更喜欢患者支持小组,而另一些患者更喜欢咨询顾问;以及传达一种决心,帮助患者度过诊断阶段。SPIKES中对患者最重要的四个组成部分是医生表达共情、慢慢来、解释诊断及其影响,以及询问患者是否理解。
SPIKES是加拿大医学院校最常教授的告知坏消息的框架。这是第一项通过定量和定性方法证明,诸如SPIKES等现有的告知坏消息指南在很大程度上反映了许多患者群体观点的研究。我们向患者强调了SPIKES中最重要组成部分,并提出了另外五条建议,以帮助临床医生告知坏消息。