• A Charles Sturt University researcher has analysed the way ‘bad news’ is delivered to cancer patients in clinical settings
• The research hopes to guide more beneficial patient-clinician communication
• The research is an international collaboration between Charles Sturt University, the University of Warwick (UK), the University of Canberra and Flinders University

A Charles Sturt University researcher has explored the way ‘bad news’ is delivered to cancer patients in a bid to improve patient-clinician communication.

Senior Lecturer in Diagnostic Radiography in the Charles Sturt School of Dentistry and Medical Sciences Mr Shayne Chau co-authored the qualitative research which examined twenty-eight existing studies and represented 976 patients.

Mr Chau said the research aimed to provide valuable new insights into developing effective communication strategies addressing the diverse needs of patients undergoing cancer treatment.

“Communication is one of the most important components of cancer care, and evidence identified that it remains problematic and poorly done in existing patient-clinician consultations in current cancer services,” Mr Chau said.

“We also found a real emphasis by patients on the importance of empathy, flexibility and a personalised approach in delivering bad news and supporting patients throughout survivorship.”

The research, titled ‘Patient experiences of patient-clinician communication among cancer multidisciplinary healthcare professionals during ‘breaking bad news’: a qualitative systematic review’, analysed all known existing evidence in relation to patient-clinician communication during the critical moments of breaking bad news to a patient.

Electronic databases were searched, as well as assessing the quality of existing research related to the topic area.

Mr Chau said there were several patient responses which resonated with him as part of the research.

“One patient said they called their primary care doctor to ask questions and was told, ‘you should call the radiologist’, and when they called the radiologist, that person said, ‘you should call your primary care doctor’,” he said.

“In another instance, we heard a woman say in relation to her first symptoms, after making an enquiry about it at a smear test, they were brushed off as her being a menopausal woman.

“Another patient added that they felt the doctors often don’t let you finish what you want to say because they are too busy getting people through.”

Considering these experiences shared by patients, Mr Chau said the research aimed to provide a voice to people with cancer to understand their experiences of what works well and what areas of communication could be improved.

“The complexity and individuality of patient-clinician communication suggests that further education is needed among the cancer multidisciplinary team so we can develop personalised, empathetic communication strategies in clinical practice, catering to diverse patient preferences,” he said.

The findings call for more inclusive research across different cultures and languages, and a need to understand evolving communication needs, especially in the context of increasing digital communication modalities in healthcare.