A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty

An Observational Study of Dialogue about Uncertainty in Clinician-Family Counseling Conversations Following Prenatal Diagnosis of Complex Congenital Heart Disease

Objective

Families who receive a prenatal diagnosis of complex congenital heart disease (cCHD) often experience severe psychological distress and identify uncertainty as a key source of that distress. This study examined clinician-family conversations during initial fetal cardiology consultations to identify the topics of uncertainty discussed.

Methods

In this observational, qualitative study, initial fetal cardiology consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent coders. A codebook was inductively and deductively developed and applied. This content analysis focused on uncertainty-related codes and associated themes.

Results

During 19 consultations including five clinicians, 13 different cardiac diagnoses were discussed (seven with high mortality risk). Median consultation length was 37 min (IQR: 26-51), with only 11% of words spoken by families. On average, 51% of total words spoken focused on uncertainty in relation to cardiac diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, prognosis, childbirth, therapeutics, and logistics. Family-initiated discussion on uncertainty largely focused on childbirth and pregnancy and postpartum logistics.

Conclusions

Half of dialogue within initial fetal cardiology encounters discussed uncertainty surrounding prenatally diagnosed cCHD. Parent and clinician perspectives should be gathered on the essential content and optimal delivery of uncertainty-related topics.

Innovation

This study is conceptually and methodologically innovative as one of the first to examine audio-recorded dialogue between fetal cardiology clinicians and families.

Uncertainty in Maternity Care

The Editor in Chief reflects on uncertainty in maternity care.

Written communication of whole genome sequencing results in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service: a multi-centre service evaluation

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is being used in diagnostic testing for certain clinical indications within the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) in England. Letter writing is an integral part of delivering results. However, no national guidelines for writing results from WGS exist. This multi-centre service evaluation used mixed methods to understand the content and readability of letters returning diagnostic, variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and no-finding results to paediatric rare disease patients. Eight Regional Genetics Services (response rate 47%) in England provided a total of 37 letters returning diagnostic (n = 13), VUS (n = 10), and no-finding (n = 14) results. Diagnostic and VUS results were usually delivered during an appointment; no-finding results were typically delivered by letter only. Letters were diverse in which content topics they covered and level of detail. No-finding letters (14/14) explained the result but were less likely to cover other topics. Diagnostic letters discussed the result (13/13), the condition (13/13), clinical genetics follow-up (13/13), clinical management (10/13), and adapting to the result (9/13). VUS letters explained the result (10/10), diagnostic uncertainty (10/10), and clinical genetics follow-up (10/10). Uncertainty was a common component of letters (33/37), irrespective of the result. Reanalysis or review after one or more years was suggested in 6/13 diagnostic, 7/10 VUS, and 6/14 no-finding letters. The mean reading level of letters corresponded to 15-17 years. Understanding how WGS results are conveyed to families during appointments, as well as how families interpret that information, is needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of results communication and inform best practices.

It is, uh, very likely? The impact of prosodic uncertainty cues on the perception and interpretation of spoken verbal probability phrases

People typically use verbal probability phrases when discussing risks ("It is likely that this treatment will work"), both in written and spoken communication. When speakers are uncertain about risks, they can nonverbally signal this uncertainty by using prosodic cues, such as a rising, question-like intonation or a filled pause ("uh"). We experimentally studied the effects of these two prosodic cues on the listener's perceived speaker certainty and numerical interpretation of spoken verbal probability phrases. Participants (N = 115) listened to various verbal probability phrases that were uttered with a rising or falling global intonation and with or without a filled pause before the probability phrase. For each phrase, they gave a point estimate of their numerical interpretation in percentages and indicated how certain they thought the speaker was about the correctness of the probability phrase. Speakers were perceived as least certain when the verbal probability phrases were spoken with both prosodic uncertainty cues. Interpretation of verbal probability phrases varied widely across participants, especially when rising intonation was produced by the speaker. Overall, high probability phrases (e.g., "very likely") were estimated as lower (and low probability phrases, such as "unlikely," as higher) when they were uttered with a rising intonation. The effects of filled pauses were less pronounced, as were the uncertainty effects for medium probability phrases (e.g., "probable"). These results stress the importance of nonverbal communication when verbally communicating risks and probabilities to people, for example, in the context of doctor-patient communication.

Effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations: An experimental study in advanced cancer

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations in advanced cancer.

METHODS

For this experimental study, we created 8 videos of a scripted oncological consultation, only varying in prognostic communication strategies. Disease-naive individuals (n = 1036) completed surveys before and after watching 1 video, while imagining being the depicted cancer patient. We investigated effects of the type of disclosure (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure) and content of disclosure (standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations. Moderating effects of individual characteristics were tested.

RESULTS

Participants generally reported more satisfaction (p < .001) after prognostic disclosure versus communication of unpredictability and less uncertainty (p = .042), more satisfaction (p = .005), and more desirability (p = .016) regarding prognostic information after numerical versus word-based estimates. Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. Prognostic communication strategies lacked effects on emotions and coping. Significant moderators included prognostic information preference and uncertainty tolerance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In an experimental setting, prognostic disclosure does not cause more negative emotions than non-disclosure and numerical estimates are more strongly appreciated than words. Oncologists' worries about harming patients should not preclude disclosing (precise) prognostic information, yet sensitivity to individual preferences and characteristics remains pivotal.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred.

METHODS

Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing

OBJECTIVES

Non-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors.

METHODS

We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.'s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty.

RESULTS

Major issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors' uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness.

CONCLUSION

Non-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Exploring counselees' non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Perspectives of Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia and High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome on Patient-Clinician Communication About Prognosis and the Future

Background

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) experience unpredictable disease trajectories and high prognostic uncertainty, which serve as barriers to patient-clinician communication about prognosis and their values and preferences for the future in the event of worsening health. Little is known about patients' day-to-day lived experiences and how this shapes their willingness to engage in such conversations.

Objectives

To explore participant perspectives on living with their illness and patient-clinician communication about prognosis and the future.

Design

This is a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

Setting/Subjects

Patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) AML and high-risk MDS from a northeastern U.S. cancer center.

Data Collection

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to generate findings.

Results

Of the 14 participants, the mean age was 66 years, 79% were men, 93% were White, married, and had AML. The overarching theme that describes the experience was "Taking One Day at a Time" in a Fog of Uncertainty. Uncertainty was a universal perception related to the challenges for clinicians to predict prognosis. To cope with uncertainty, most participants tried to focus on the present and maintain normality in everyday life. Participants valued encouragement and positivity in patient-clinician communication, however, the majority were not ready to discuss prognosis and the future in the event of worsening health. Of note, 7 of 14 participants died within three months after the interview.

Conclusions

These data describe a unique perspective of patients with R/R AML and high-risk MDS that clinicians could use to enhance communication strategies.

Disentangling trust of patients with rare cancer in their healthcare professionals and the healthcare system: a qualitative interview study

PURPOSE

Patients with a rare cancer face challenges, e.g., delayed diagnosis, that may affect trust in the healthcare system and the healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved. This study aimed to explore trust of patients with a rare cancer in their HCPs and the healthcare system.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 purposively sampled patients with a rare cancer. The interview guide included topics related to trust, including level, development, barriers and facilitators, importance, and trust dimensions. Thematic analysis was conducted with use of Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 50 years, 60% were female, and 70% were highly educated. Three themes were constructed: (1) "Confirmed expertise is a prerequisite of trust." Patients need confirmation of their HCPs' expertise, as it could not be assumed due to the rarity of their cancer; (2) "Trust depends on the adequacy of information and how it is provided." Limited information about rare cancer reduced patients' trust in health care, whereas interpersonal trust was mainly affected by how HCPs provided information; and (3) "Trust is built on properly coordinated and supportive care." Proper organization and cooperation within and between hospitals, and integration of supportive care, enhanced trust.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a rare cancer experience challenges that influence trust in HCPs and the healthcare system. Further research should examine trust among subgroups of patients with a rare cancer, to enable development of tailored interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

HCPs may improve trust by focusing on expertise, effective information provision, proper coordination of care, and provision of adequate supportive care.

Shared decision-making with older adults with cancer: Adaptation of a model through literature review and expert opinion

OBJECTIVE

To provide a literature overview of characteristics of Shared Decision Making (SDM) with specific importance to the older adult population with cancer and to tailor an existing model of SDM in patients with cancer to the needs of older adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies described factors influencing SDM concerning cancer treatment with adults aged 65 years or above, with any type of cancer. We included qualitative or mixed-methods studies. Themes were identified and discussed in an expert panel, including a patient-representative, until consensus was reached on an adjusted model.

RESULTS

Overall 29 studies were included and nine themes were identified from the literature. The themes related to the importance of goal setting, need for tailored information provision, the role of significant others, uncertainty of evidence, the importance of time during and outside of consultations, the possible ill-informed preconceptions that health care professionals (HCPs) might have about older adults and the specific competencies they need to engage in the SDM process with older adults. No new themes emerged from discussion with expert panel. This study presents a visual model of SDM with older patients with cancer based on the identified themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model shows key elements that are specific to SDM with older adults. Further research needs to focus on how to educate HCPs on the competencies needed to engage in SDM with older patients, and how to implement the model into everyday practice.

How should uncertainty about upcoming painful procedures be communicated? An experimental study into highly uncertain pain predictions

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty is unavoidable in the context of painful medical procedures. It is important to investigate the impact of different ways of communicating uncertainty on upcoming pain.

METHODS

In our exploratory study, healthy participants (n = 30) were repeatedly presented with three highly uncertain pain predictions communicated by a hypothetical doctor. A direct statement of high uncertainty ("I don't know") was compared to more indirect predictions (social prediction: "It varies widely among people"; range prediction: "… not painful at all to very highly painful"), followed by individually calibrated electrical stimuli of non-, moderately, or very highly painful intensity.

RESULTS

The direct expression of uncertainty led to the most intense pain sensation (for moderately painful stimuli only), lowest and most certain pain expectations, lowest trust in the hypothetical doctor, and lowest feeling of being well-informed, especially as compared to the social prediction. No differential effects on anxiety were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressing high uncertainty indirectly, with reference to the common experiences of others, may be beneficial for optimizing pain experiences and enhancing patients' trust in a medical professional.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our findings inform on how high uncertainty about upcoming pain may impact patient and health outcomes, pointing to some advantages of indirect communication.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with error in patients admitted to the PICU.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study using structured medical record review by trained clinicians using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to identify diagnostic error (defined as missed opportunities in diagnosis). Cases with potential errors were further reviewed by four pediatric intensivists who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence. Demographic, clinical, clinician, and encounter data were also collected.

SETTING

Four academic tertiary-referral PICUs.

PATIENTS

Eight hundred eighty-two randomly selected patients 0-18 years old who were nonelectively admitted to participating PICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Infections (46%) and respiratory conditions (23%) were the most common missed diagnoses. One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital stay. Common missed diagnostic opportunities included failure to consider the diagnosis despite a suggestive history (69%) and failure to broaden diagnostic testing (69%). Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentations (23.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.011), neurologic chief complaints (46.2% vs 18.8%, p = 0.024), admitting intensivists greater than or equal to 45 years old (92.3% vs 65.1%, p = 0.042), admitting intensivists with more service weeks/year (mean 12.8 vs 10.9 wk, p = 0.031), and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (77% vs 25.1%, p < 0.001). Generalized linear mixed models determined that atypical presentation (odds ratio [OR] 4.58; 95% CI, 0.94-17.1) and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (OR 9.67; 95% CI, 2.86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presentations and diagnostic uncertainty on admission, suggesting possible targets for intervention.

Communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention in the memory clinic: perspectives of European memory clinic professionals

BACKGROUND

The paradigm shift towards earlier Alzheimer's disease (AD) stages and personalized medicine creates new challenges for clinician-patient communication. We conducted a survey among European memory clinic professionals to identify opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and inventory needs for augmenting communication skills.

METHODS

Memory clinic professionals (N = 160) from 21 European countries completed our online survey (59% female, 14 ± 10 years' experience, 73% working in an academic hospital). We inventoried (1) opinions on communication about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention using 11 statements; (2) current communication practices in response to five hypothetical cases (AD dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), subjective cognitive decline (SCD), with ( +) or without ( -) abnormal AD biomarkers); and (3) needs for communication support regarding ten listed communication skills.

RESULTS

The majority of professionals agreed that communication on diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention should be personalized to the individual patient. In response to the hypothetical patient cases, disease stage influenced the inclination to communicate an etiological AD diagnosis: 97% would explicitly mention the presence of AD to the patient with AD dementia, 68% would do so in MCI + , and 29% in SCD + . Furthermore, 58% would explicitly rule out AD in case of MCI - when talking to patients, and 69% in case of SCD - . Almost all professionals (79-99%) indicated discussing prognosis and prevention with all patients, of which a substantial part (48-86%) would personalize their communication to patients' diagnostic test results (39-68%) or patients' anamnestic information (33-82%). The majority of clinicians (79%) would like to use online tools, training, or both to support them in communicating with patients. Topics for which professionals desired support most were: stimulating patients' understanding of information, and communicating uncertainty, dementia risk, remotely/online, and with patients not (fluently) speaking the language of the country of residence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a survey of European memory clinic professionals, we found a strong positive attitude towards communication with patients about (etiological) diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention, and personalization of communication to characteristics and needs of individual patients. In addition, professionals expressed a need for supporting tools and skills training to further improve their communication with patients.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

PURPOSE

In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.

METHOD

A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.

RESULTS

Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.

CONCLUSION

This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.

Sharing decisions amid uncertainties: a qualitative interview study of healthcare professionals' ethical challenges and norms regarding decision-making in gender-affirming medical care

BACKGROUND

In gender-affirming medical care (GAMC), ethical challenges in decision-making are ubiquitous. These challenges are becoming more pressing due to exponentially increasing referrals, politico-legal contestation, and divergent normative views regarding decisional roles and models. Little is known, however, about what ethical challenges related to decision-making healthcare professionals (HCPs) themselves face in their daily work in GAMC and how these relate to, for example, the subjective nature of Gender Incongruence (GI), the multidisciplinary character of GAMC and the role HCPs play in assessing GI and eligibility for interventions. Given the relevance and urgency of these questions, we conducted a qualitative study among HCPs providing GAMC to transgender adults in the Netherlands.

METHODS

In this qualitative research, we conducted 11 semi-structured interviews between May 2020 and February 2021 with HCPs (six mental health professionals, two HCPs in endocrinology, two in plastic surgery, and one in nursing) working in two distinct GAMC settings. We purposively sampled for professional background and years of experience in GAMC. We analyzed our interview data using thematic analysis. As some respondents were more inclined to speak about what should or ought to be done to arrive at good or right decision-making, we identified both ethical challenges and norms. Furthermore, in our analysis, we differentiated between respondents' explicit and implicit ethical challenges and norms and ascertained the specific context in which these challenges emerged.

RESULTS

Respondents' ethical challenges and norms centered on (1) dividing and defining decisional roles and bounds, (2) negotiating decision-making in a (multidisciplinary) team, and (3) navigating various decision-making temporalities. These themes arose in the context of uncertainties regarding (1) GAMC's guidelines, evidence, and outcomes, as well as (2) the boundaries and assessment of GI.

CONCLUSIONS

This interview study provides detailed empirical insight into both the explicit and implicit ethical challenges that HCPs experience and their ethical norms regarding decision-making. It also describes how uncertainties and (implicit) normativities concerning GAMC and GI pre-structure the moral environment in which these challenges and norms manifest. We provide normative reflections and recommendations on handling these ethical challenges in a way that is sensitive to the context in which they arise.

Communication between the multidisciplinary team and families regarding nutrition and hydration for people with severe dementia in acute hospitals: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

When a person with severe dementia is in hospital and has eating and drinking difficulties, communication between the multidisciplinary team and families can be challenging and lead to suboptimal care.

OBJECTIVE

To gain in-depth understanding about the experiences, views and needs of family carers and hospital staff, regarding communication and conversations about nutrition and hydration, for hospital patients with severe dementia.

DESIGN

Qualitative semi-structured interview study.

SETTING

Acute hospital in England.

METHODS

From January to May 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 family carers and hospital staff. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic methods.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were developed: (i) prerequisites to initiating communication about eating and drinking; (ii) communication aiming to develop agreed care plans; (iii) difficulty discussing palliative and end-of-life care; and (iv) needs of information and plans about future eating and drinking difficulties. Families tended to wait for hospital staff to initiate discussions but usually experienced frustration with delays and repeated conversations with different staff. Some staff felt unprepared to manage these conversations and found it challenging to work across the multidisciplinary team. During discharge processes, key information and care plans about eating and drinking were not regularly passed on to people involved to avoid unnecessary readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute hospitals, family carers and hospital staff can have disjointed communications and conversations about nutrition and hydration for persons with severe dementia. Timely reassurance, ongoing discussions and clear information sharing will support communication between those involved.

How doctors manage conflicts with families of critically ill patients during conversations about end-of-life decisions in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care

PURPOSE

Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors' conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies.

METHODS

Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients' best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach.

RESULTS

Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families' strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families' cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation.

CONCLUSION

This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict.

Common needs in uncommon conditions: a qualitative study to explore the need for care in pediatric patients with rare diseases

Background

Challenges faced by children diagnosed with a rare disease or complex condition and their family members are often characterized by disease-specific complexities, such as a prolonged diagnostic process, an uncertain prognosis, and the absence of curative treatment. The psychological burden of living with a rare disease or complex condition is often understudied and may present overarching concepts that shape the general experience of having been diagnosed with a rare condition. The present study examines common needs from a comprehensive perspective combining relevant aspects from the rare disease literature in a theoretical perspective from pediatric psychology, such as a family-centred, developmental and interdisciplinary approach. An exploratory study was designed among parents from children with a rare disease or complex condition in an Integrated University Children’s Hospital in the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with open-ended questions based around the experience of having a child diagnosed with a rare condition, such as the psychosocial impact on the child and it’s development, the impact on the family, and how provided care was experienced.

Results

Twelve interviews were analysed with a thematic content analysis to identify common needs. Eight themes followed from the analysis and uncovered the need for (1) family-focused care, (2) coping with uncertainty, (3) empathic communication, (4) practical support, (5) information, (6) psychological support, (7) interdisciplinary care, and (8) social support.

Conclusions

The results from our study provide directions for research and health care to support young patients with a rare disease or complex condition and their families. Moreover, our results demonstrated that there are overarching concepts across different rare diseases that may be optimally supported with interdisciplinary care.

Covid-19 pandemic lessons: uncritical communication of test results can induce more harm than benefit and raises questions on standardized quality criteria for communication and liability

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by both health and economic risks. A 'safety loop' model postulates risk-related decisions are not based on objective and measurable risks but on the subjective perception of those risks. We here illustrate a quantification of the difference between objective and subjective risks.

METHOD

The objective risks (or chances) can be obtained from traditional 2 × 2 tables by calculating the positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios. The subjective perception of objective risks is calculated from the same 2 × 2 tables by exchanging the X- and Y-axes. The traditional 2 × 2 table starts with the hypothesis, uses a test and a gold standard to confirm or exclude the investigated condition. The 2 × 2 table with inverted axes starts with the communication of a test result and presumes that the communication of bad news (whether right or false) will induce 'Perceived Anxiety' while good news will induce 'Perceived Safety'. Two different functions (confirmation and exclusion) of both perceptions (Perceived Anxiety and Safety) can be quantified with those calculations.

RESULTS

The analysis of six published tests and of one incompletely reported test on COVID-19 polymerase chain reactions (completed by four assumptions on high and low sensitivities and specificities) demonstrated that none of these tests induces 'Perceived Safety'. Eight of the ten tests confirmed the induction of 'Perceived Anxiety' with + LRs (range 3.1-5900). In two of these eight tests, a -LR (0.25 and 0.004) excluded the induction of 'Perceived Safety'.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication of test results caused perceived anxiety but not perceived safety in 80% of the investigated tests. Medical tests - whether true or false - generate strong psychological messages. In the case of COVID-19 tests may induce more perceived anxiety than safety. Risk communication has to balance objective and subjective risks.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty

BACKGROUND

Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.