How to communicate with patients about future illness progression and end of life: a systematic review
journal contributionposted on 23.04.2018 by Ruth Parry, Victoria Land, Jane Seymour
Any type of content formally published in an academic journal, usually following a peer-review process.
Background: Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life. Objectives To: Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters; Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters; Identify evidence gaps. Design: Systematic review of conversation/ discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis. Results: 19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: 'fishing questions'-open questions seeking patients' perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said-or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19). Conclusions: Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging-this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging ontopic talk, as is linking questions to patients' cues. Shifting towards more 'optimistic' aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.
The study was funded by the Sue Ryder Care Centre for the Study of Supportive, Palliative and End of Life Care at the School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham (for RP's and JS's time) and by a small grant from the School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham (for VL's time). The study sponsor was the University of Nottingham.
- Social Sciences
- Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies