Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar;25(3):707-711.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt582. Epub 2014 Feb 6.

Breaking bad news-what patients want and what they get: evaluating the SPIKES protocol in Germany

C Seifart  1 , M Hofmann  2 , T Bär  3 , J Riera Knorrenschild  4 , U Seifart  5 , W Rief  2
Affiliations

Breaking bad news-what patients want and what they get: evaluating the SPIKES protocol in Germany

C Seifart et al. Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of the SPIKES protocol, a recommended guideline for breaking bad news, is sparse, and information about patients' preferences for bad-news delivery in Germany is lacking. Being the first actual-theoretical comparison of a 'breaking bad news' guideline, the present study evaluates the recommended steps of the SPIKES protocol. Moreover, emotional consequences and quality of bad-news delivery are investigated.

Patients and methods: A total of 350 cancer patients answered the MABBAN (Marburg Breaking Bad News Scale), a questionnaire representing the six SPIKES subscales, asking for the procedure, perception and satisfaction of the first cancer disclosure and patient's assign to these items.

Results: Only 46.2% of the asked cancer patients are completely satisfied with how bad news had been broken to them. The overall quality is significantly related to the emotional state after receiving bad news (r = -0.261, P < 0.001). Patients' preferences differ highly significantly from the way bad news were delivered, and the resulting rang list of patients' preferences indicates that the SPIKES protocol do not fully meet the priorities of cancer patients in Germany.

Conclusions: It could be postulated that the low satisfaction of patients observed in this study reflects the highly significant difference between patients' preferences and bad-news delivery. Therefore, some adjunctions to the SPIKES protocol should be considered, including a frequent reassurance of listeners' understanding, the perpetual possibility to ask question, respect for prearrangement needs and the conception of bad-news delivery in a two-step procedure.

Keywords: bad-news delivery; breaking bad news; cancer diagnosis; spikes protocol.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Buckman R. How to Break Bad News: A Guide for Health Care Professionals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,; 1992.
    1. Fellowfield L, Jenkins V. Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine. Lancet. 2004;363:312–319. - PubMed
    1. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, et al. A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. The oncologist. 2000;5:302–311. - PubMed
    1. Fellowfield LJ, Jenkins V. Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1592–1597. - PubMed
    1. Rabow MW, McPhee SJ. Beyond breaking bad news: how to help patients who suffer. West J Med. 1999;171:260–263. - PMC - PubMed