| Literature DB >> 21063562 |
Inchoel Park1, Amit Gupta, Kaivon Mandani, Laura Haubner, Brad Peckler.
Abstract
Breaking bad news (BBN) in the emergency department (ED) is a common occurrence. This is especially true for an emergency physician (EP) as there is little time to prepare for the event and likely little or no knowledge of the patients or family background information. At our institution, there is no formal training for EP residents in delivering bad news. We felt teaching emergency medicine residents these communication skills should be an important part of their educational curriculum. We describe our experience with a defined educational program designed to educate and improve physician's confidence and competence in bad news and death notification. A regularly scheduled 5-h grand rounds conference time frame was dedicated to the education of EM residents about BBN. A multidisciplinary approach was taken to broaden the prospective of the participants. The course included lectures from different specialties, role playing for three short scenarios in different capacities, and hi-fidelity simulation cases with volatile psychosocial issues and stressors. Participants were asked to fill out a self-efficacy form and evaluation sheets. Fourteen emergency residents participated and all thought that this education is necessary. The mean score of usefulness is 4.73 on a Likert Scale from 1 to 5. The simulation part was thought to be the most useful (43%), with role play 14%, and lecture 7%. We believe that teaching physicians to BBN in a controlled environment is a good use of educational time and an important procedure that EP must learn.Entities:
Keywords: Delivering bad news; education; simulation
Year: 2010 PMID: 21063562 PMCID: PMC2966572 DOI: 10.4103/0974-2700.70760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Emerg Trauma Shock ISSN: 0974-2700
S-P-I-K-E-S competence Form – SHORT FORM
| Directions: Please indicate whether the physician completed the stated actions, with Y = completed (Yes) or N = did not complete (No) |
|---|
| S – Set the stage |
| 1. Clearly introduced herself/himself |
| 2. Clearly stated his/her role in the care of the patient |
| P – Perception |
| 3. Determined the level of knowledge the survivors possessed prior to their arrival in the waiting room |
| 4. Took note of the news receiver’s vocabulary |
| I – Inform |
| 5. Briefly indicated the chronology of events leading up to the death of the patient |
| 6. Used language appropriate for the survivor’s culture and educational level |
| 7. Avoided using euphemisms |
| K – Knowledge |
| 8. Allowed the survivor to react to the information and ask questions or express concerns |
| 9. Answered ALL questions in an appropriate manner |
| E – Empathy |
| 10. Used proper statements to show concern for the grieving |
| 11. Validated emotions of the grieving |
| S – Summary and Strategy |
| 12. Avoided showing any physician guilt for the loss/poor prognosis |
| 13. Established personal availability to answer questions for the survivor at a later date |
| 14. Ended the discussion and departed in an appropriate manner |
Figure 1Comparative chart of the mean Likert scores. Likert scale (1, lowest to 5, highest) given to each aspect of the workshop
Figure 2The most useful sessions