PTU-004 Applying Clinical Frameworks And Models To Improve The Specialist Screening Practitioners (ssp) Skills When Breaking Bad News Within The Bowel Screening Wales (bsw) Programme
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Communicating a life altering diagnosis to a participant is considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of the SSP role. Research would suggest that screen detected cancers are likely to be asymptomatic and in the absence of warning signs there is little time for people to prepare for such news. Screening diagnosis often show positive appraisals with an understanding that the disease may be curable through early diagnosis. The aim of this work is to determine the skills involved when the SSP breaks bad news to the participants within the bowel screening programme in Wales. Using personal reflection, clinical frameworks and models are assessed to establish if they can be used effectively to utilise these skills in the delivery of bad news. Methods A literature review of the current research into reflection and breaking bad news was undertaken; from this a number of consultation frameworks were selected, namely: Models of Communication SPIKES (Breaking bad news) The MacMaster Technique Reflective Practice and the use of Gibbs reflective cycle Key themes were identified in terms of professional and personal responsibility, particularly around communication, during the process of breaking bad news. These were adopted into clinical practice. Using Gibbs reflective cycle, personal reflection was undertaken during this transition phase and results noted. Results Effective communication in breaking bad news demonstrating empathy and respect is vitally important, and one could argue as significant as treating the person who has a cancer diagnosis. The manner in which the information is imparted to the participant and their family can have serious consequences on their psychological morbidity and their ability to engage with the decision making processes in regard to their healthcare management. Application of the structure from the Calgary Cambridge Consultation Framework, supported by the SPIKES communication model and the MacMaster Technique, provides the necessary tools to support the participant through potentially difficult clinical consultations. Likewise, practitioners are able to manage the consultation and have a clear process to follow, allowing for respect, empathy and support for the participants; thus augmenting the quality of service provided. Conclusion It is essential that SSPs have the knowledge and skills to furnish them for effective communication skills to break bad news and to support participants and their families. Implementation of these frameworks has been found to provide the tool with which the SSP can be supported in their clinical practice and also sustain their participants when communicating a life altering diagnosis. References Buckman R, Kason Y (1992) Gibbs G (1988) Kaplan M (2010) Kurtz S, Silverman J (1996) Disclosure of Interest None Declared.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,034 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».