Receiving bad news about one’s health can be devastating, yet little is known about how the therapeutic nature of the environment where bad news is delivered affects the experience. The current study aimed to explore how patients and their families were affected by the language and the built, natural, social, and symbolic environments when receiving bad news, through the Therapeutic Landscapes theoretical framework.

Patients diagnosed with a life-limiting illness living in regional Victoria who had a hospital admission within 24 months and a diagnostic/prognostic conversation were invited to participate, as well as a family member who witnessed the conversation. Participants were recruited through social media and snowballing, resulting in 14 online semi-structured interviews being conducted between November 2021 and March 2022, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop the themes.

Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with women aged between 30 and 77 years. Interviews lasted between 45 and 120 minutes, with an average of 69 minutes, and were conducted online or via mobile phone. Four central themes were developed: “Hearing bad news for the first time,” “Preferences for having hard conversations,” “Creating a sense of safety for ongoing care,” and “The therapeutic nature of the ward.”

This body of work will help inform practice and future policy regarding bad news delivery and the design and aesthetics of environments where bad news is delivered. It is essential that bad news is delivered within a quiet, calm, and emotionally safe environment within a supportive therapeutic relationship.

Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news continues to be difficult for health professionals, yet it is essential for patients when making informed decisions about their treatment and end-of-life care. This literature review aimed to explore and examine how health professionals, patients, and families experience truth disclosure during the delivery of bad news in the inpatient/outpatient palliative care setting.

A systemized search for peer-reviewed, published papers between 2013 and 2020 was undertaken in September 2020 using the CINAHL, Medline, and PsycInfo databases. The keywords and MeSH terms (“truth disclosure”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) were used. The search was repeated using (“bad news”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) terms. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to synthesize the findings from the eight papers.

Eight papers were included in the meta-synthesis and were represented by five Western countries. Following the synthesis process, two concepts were identified: “Enablers in breaking bad news” and “Truth avoidance/disclosure.” Several elements formed the concept of Enablers for breaking bad news, such as the therapeutic relationship, reading cues, acknowledgment, language/delivery, time/place, and qualities. A conceptual model was developed to illustrate the findings of the synthesis.

The conceptual model demonstrates a unique way to look at communication dynamics around truth disclosure and avoidance when breaking bad news. Informed decision-making requires an understanding of the whole truth, and therefore truth disclosure is an essential part of breaking bad news.

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate effectiveness of an educational training workshop using role-playing to teach medical students in Botswana to deliver bad news.

A 3-hour small group workshop for University of Botswana medical students rotating at the Princess Marina Hospital in Gaborone was developed. The curriculum included an overview of communication basics and introduction of the validated (SPIKES) protocol for breaking bad news. Education strategies included didactic lecture, handouts, role-playing cases, and open forum discussion. Pre- and posttraining surveys assessed prior exposure and approach to breaking bad news using multiple-choice questions and perception of skill about breaking bad news using a 5-point Likert scale. An objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with a standardized breaking bad news skills assessment was conducted; scores compared two medical student classes before and after the workshop was implemented.

Forty-two medical students attended the workshop and 83% (35/42) completed the survey. Medical students reported exposure to delivering bad news on average 6.9 (SD = 13.7) times monthly, with 71% (25/35) having delivered bad news themselves without supervision. Self-perceived skill and confidence increased from 23% (8/35) to 86% (30/35) of those who reported feeling “good” or “very good” with their ability to break bad news after the workshop. Feedback after the workshop demonstrated that 100% found the SPIKES approach helpful and planned to use it in clinical practice, found role-playing helpful, and requested more sessions. Competency for delivering bad news increased from a mean score of 14/25 (56%, SD = 3.3) at baseline to 18/25 (72%, SD = 3.6) after the workshop (p = 0.0002).

This workshop was effective in increasing medical student skill and confidence in delivering bad news. Standardized role-playing communication workshops integrated into medical school curricula could be a low-cost, effective, and easily implementable strategy to improve communication skills of doctors.

Communication based on patient preferences can alleviate their psychological distress and is an important part of patient-centered care for physicians who have the task of conveying bad news to cancer patients. The present study aimed to explore the demographic, medical, and psychological factors associated with patient preferences with regard to communication of bad news.

Outpatients with a variety of cancers were consecutively invited to participate in our study after their follow-up medical visit. A questionnaire assessed their preferences regarding the communication of bad news, covering four factors—(1) how bad news is delivered, (2) reassurance and emotional support, (3) additional information, and (4) setting—as well as on demographic, medical, and psychosocial factors.

A total of 529 outpatients with a variety of cancers completed the questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses indicated that patients who were younger, female, had greater faith in their physician, and were more highly educated placed more importance on “how bad news is delivered” than patients who were older, male, had less faith in their physician, and a lower level of education. Female patients and patients without an occupation placed more importance on “reassurance and emotional support.” Younger, female, and more highly educated patients placed more importance on “additional information.” Younger, female, and more highly educated patients, along with patients who weren't undergoing active treatment placed more importance on “setting.”

Patient preferences with regard to communication of bad news are associated with factors related to patient background. Physicians should consider these characteristics when delivering bad news and use an appropriate communication style tailored to each patient.

The purposes of this study were to develop a communication skills training (CST) workshop program based on patient preferences, and to evaluate preliminary feasibility of the CST program on the objective performances of physicians and the subjective ratings of their confidence about the communication with patients at the pre- and post-CST.

The CST program was developed, based on the previous surveys on patient preferences (setting up the supporting environment of the interview, making consideration for how to deliver bad news, discussing about additional information, and provision of reassurance and emotional support) and addressing the patient's emotion with empathic responses, and stressing the oncologists' emotional support. The program was participants' centered approach, consisted a didactic lecture, role plays with simulated patients, discussions and an ice-breaking; a total of 2-days. To evaluate feasibility of the newly developed CST program, oncologists who participated it were assessed their communication performances (behaviors and utterances) during simulated consultation at the pre- and post-CST. Participants also rated their confidence communicating with patients at the pre-, post-, and 3-months after CST, burnout at pre and 3 months after CST, and the helpfulness of the program at post-CST.

Sixteen oncologists attended a newly developed CST. A comparison of pre-post measures showed improvement of oncologists' communication performances, especially skills of emotional support and consideration for how to deliver information. Their confidence in communicating bad news was rated higher score at post-CST than at pre-CST and was persisted at 3-months after the CST. Emotional exhaustion scores decreased at 3-months after CST. In addition, oncologists rated high satisfaction with all components of the program.

This pilot study suggests that the newly developed CST program based on patient preferences seemed feasible and potentially effective on improving oncologists' communication behaviors what patients prefer and confidence in communicating with patients.