Skip to main content

Consent and Communication Skills in Management of Gynaeoncology

  • 175 Accesses

Abstract

Gynaecological malignancy has an immense impact on the well-being of women. In order to help women clearly understand their disease, investigations, treatment options and prognosis, it is essential that we provide high-quality information in an appropriate manner and environment. Effective communication is key to a successful doctor–patient relationship and the delivery of safe patient care. Communication is defined as the act of imparting knowledge and encompasses the exchange of information, ideas and feelings. It is a two-way, relational process that is influenced by context, culture, words, and gestures, and it is one of the most important ways that clinicians influence the quality of medical care that patients and their families receive. When patients and doctors communicate well during cancer care, patients are more satisfied with their care, feel more in control and are more likely to follow through with treatment. This chapter covers flaws in communication, best practices for communication, informed consent, and breaking bad news.

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Consent
  • Breaking bad news

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_3
  • Chapter length: 8 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 3.1

References

  1. ACT Academy. SBAR communication tool—situation, background, assessment, recommendation. NHS Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Back AL. Patient-clinician communication issues in palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:866–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Sardell AN, Trierweiler SJ. Disclosing the cancer diagnosis. Procedures that influence patient hopefulness. Cancer. 1993;1993(72):3355–65.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Zachariae R, Pedersen CG, Jensen AB, et al. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:658–65.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Richards T. Chasms in communication. BMJ. 1990;301(6766):1407–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6766.1407.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Duffy FD, Gordon GH, Whelan G, et al. Assessing competence in communication and interpersonal skills: the Kalamazoo II report. Acad Med. 2004;79(6):495–507.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Meryn S. Improving doctor-patient communication. Not an option, but a necessity. BMJ. 1998;316(7149):1922. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7149.1922.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez H, et al. Relation of patients’ experiences with individual physicians to malpractice risk. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(1):5–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Zachariae R, Pedersen CG, Jensen AB, Ehrnrooth E, Rossen PB, von der Maase H. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy, and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(5):658–65.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Nguyen MH, Smets EMA, Bol N, et al. Fear and forget: how anxiety impacts information recall in newly diagnosed cancer patients visiting a fast-track clinic. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(2):182–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB. Doctor–patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:903–18.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. National Voices. Person centred care 2020: calls and contributions from health and social care charities. September, 2014. https://www.nationalvoices.org.uk/publications/our-publications/person-centred-care-2020.

  13. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. Manchester: GMC; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  14. PDQ® Supportive and Palliative Care Editorial Board. PDQ Communication in Cancer Care. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated 02/01/2018. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/adjusting-to-cancer/communication-hp-pdq.

  15. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (RCOG). Standards for gynaecology: providing quality care for women. London: RCOG; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Buckman R. Communication in palliative care: a practical guide. In: Doyle D, Hanks GWC, MacDonald N, editors. Oxford textbook of palliative care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 141–56.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baile WB, Glober GA, Lenzi R, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. Discussing disease progression and end-of-life decisions. Oncology. 1999;13:1021–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boland B, Burnage J, Scott A. Protecting against harm: safeguarding adults in general medicine. Clin Med (Lond). 2014;14(4):345–8. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.14-4-345.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Sisk BA, Mack JW. How should we enhance the process and purpose of prognostic communication in oncology? AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(8):E757–65.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Kodjo C. Cultural competence in clinician communication. Pediatr Rev. 2009;30(2):57–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Scott R, Hawarden A, Russell B, Edmondson RJ. Decision-making in gynaecological oncology multidisciplinary team meetings: a cross-sectional, observational study of ovarian cancer cases. Oncol Res Treat. 2020;43(3):70–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S, Fallowfield L. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):935–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Buckman R. Breaking bad news: why is it still so difficult? BMJ. 1984;288:1597–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaye P. Breaking bad news: a 10-step approach. Northampton: EPL; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: a guide for physicians and other health professionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obtaining valid consent. Clinical Governance Advice No.6. London: RCOG; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  27. British Medical Association. Confidentiality and disclosure of health information tool kit. London: BMA; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  28. General Medical Council (GMC). Decision making and consent. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cheung E, Goodyear G, Yoong W. Medicolegal update on consent: “The Montgomery Ruling”. Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;18(3):171–2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aarti Lakhiani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lakhiani, A., Sundar, S. (2022). Consent and Communication Skills in Management of Gynaeoncology. In: Singh, K., Gupta, B. (eds) Gynecological Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94109-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)