Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Communicating with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: can we do it better?

Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, Francesco Bonella, Leticia Orsatti, Anne-Marie Russell, Claudia Valenzuela, Wim A. Wuyts, Walter F. Baile
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00422-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00422-2021
Marlies S. Wijsenbeek
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: m.wijsenbeek-lourens@erasmusmc.nl
Francesco Bonella
2Center for Interstitial and Rare Lung Disease, Ruhrlandklinik, University Hospital, Duisburg-Essen University, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Francesco Bonella
Leticia Orsatti
3Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Marie Russell
4College of Medicine and Health University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anne-Marie Russell
Claudia Valenzuela
5Pulmonology Dept, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wim A. Wuyts
6Unit for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Wim A. Wuyts
Walter F. Baile
7University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Communications between clinicians and patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have the potential to be challenging. The variable course and poor prognosis of IPF complicate discussions around life expectancy but should not prevent clinicians from having meaningful conversations about patients’ fears and needs, while acknowledging uncertainties. Patients want information about the course of their disease and management options, but the provision of information needs to be individualised to the needs and preferences of the patient. Communication from clinicians should be empathetic and take account of the patient's perceptions and concerns. Models, tools and protocols are available that can help clinicians to improve their interactions with patients. In this article, we consider the difficulties inherent in discussions with patients with IPF and their loved ones, and how clinicians might communicate with patients more effectively, from breaking the news about the diagnosis to providing support throughout the course of the disease.

Abstract

Communication from clinicians to patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should be empathetic, and take account of the patient's perceptions and concerns. Tools are available to help clinicians improve their interactions with patients with IPF. https://bit.ly/3BWjA7h

Introduction

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a diagnosis with devastating consequences for the patient. Receiving a diagnosis of IPF may evoke a range of emotions, including sadness, fear, confusion and denial [1–3]. Patients look to their clinicians as a source of information about their disease, its prognosis and how they can lessen its impact on their lives [4–6], and should be supported to take an active role in their care [7]. Patients may benefit from both emotional support and practical advice as they adapt to the impact of IPF on their lives and relationships, and contemplate the shortening of their lives [2, 3, 8, 9].

Conversations between a clinician and a patient have the potential to be challenging, for reasons related to the patient, the clinician and the healthcare system (figure 1) [10]. The variable course, risk of acute exacerbations and poor prognosis associated with IPF cause uncertainty both for patients and clinicians. However, this uncertainty should not lead to “prognostic paralysis” and prevent clinicians from having meaningful conversations about patients’ fears and needs, while acknowledging uncertainties. In this article, we consider the difficulties in communicating with patients with IPF and their loved ones, and how clinicians might communicate with patients more effectively, from breaking the news about the diagnosis to providing support throughout the course of the disease.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Factors that contribute to challenging interactions between physicians and patients. Reproduced and modified from [10] with permission.

What are the challenges in communicating with patients with IPF?

Most people diagnosed with IPF have never heard of IPF and nor have their families or friends. Patients have often taken some time to receive their diagnosis, seen a number of specialists, and received conflicting information about their likely diagnosis and prognosis [11, 12]. A diagnosis of IPF may leave patients feeling confused and misunderstood [1, 2, 4, 9]. Not all centres are set up to provide adequate information and support [13, 14]. Time constraints in busy clinics pose challenges to providing adequate patient support. Many patients find information online that is inaccurate, outdated or misleading [15, 16], or would have been better understood if communicated by a clinician than read by the patient alone. A significant proportion of patients trying to cope with IPF suffer from anxiety or depression [17–19] or other forms of psychological distress. Multiple factors may contribute to this, including breathlessness and cough, a loss of ability to perform daily activities, and fears around how progression of their disease will affect them and their families. Although awareness has increased, clinicians may not be willing to initiate a discussion about mental health with their patients.

The fear of destroying patients’ hopes leaves many physicians reluctant to have conversations about life expectancy with their patients [20]. The unpredictable course of disease and risk of acute exacerbations of IPF, which are associated with very high mortality, make discussions about prognosis even more challenging. An online survey of 287 European pulmonologists found that only 28% rated themselves as comfortable when discussing the typical prognosis of IPF with a newly diagnosed patient and only 54% typically communicated the typical prognosis to a patient at diagnosis [5]. Only 31% of respondents said that they typically provided facts about average life expectancy if a patient asked them how long they had left to live. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial and reflect the difficulty of “putting a number on” life expectancy when the course of IPF is variable. In clinical practice, clinicians must balance the uncertainties of prognostic estimates with the need (and, in some countries, the legal requirement) to provide patients with all necessary information.

Could communication skills training help?

Communication is a skill that must be learnt and practised. The importance of training should not be underestimated: research has demonstrated that clinicians’ empathy and communication skills, including in breaking bad news, can be improved through well-designed training programmes [21, 22]. Discussions between clinicians and patients require a structured, relationship-centred approach, in which patients not only are given information with compassion and kindness but also have their most important concerns addressed [10, 23–25]. Patient-reported outcome measures, such as questionnaires assessing symptoms and specific impacts of the disease on quality of life, may be useful to identify issues that need to be discussed [26] but they need to be implemented appropriately [27]. The use of a simple supportive care decision aid tool, completed by the clinician and designed to highlight poor prognostic factors, symptoms of concern and changes in functional status, has been shown to result in increases in end-of-life discussions with the patient and in referrals to palliative care [28]. Tools have also been developed to measure patients’ perceptions of empathy during a consultation and so provide clinicians with feedback for self-evaluation [29].

What can be learnt from research in patients with cancer?

IPF has some parallels with life-limiting cancers in the fear that it generates among patients and their families, and the communication challenges that it presents to clinicians. Research conducted into optimising communication between clinicians and patients with cancer may have implications for the care of patients with IPF. The US National Cancer Institute has published a model for patient-centred communication in cancer care, which stresses that communication is a learnt skill, and describes verbal and nonverbal behaviours that clinicians can use to build a strong patient–doctor relationship [23]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has published a consensus guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel, on how to optimise the patient–clinician relationship [30]. Key recommendations focus on core communication skills; how best to discuss care and prognosis, treatment options and end-of-life care; how to facilitate family involvement in care; how to manage barriers to communication; and the role of training in improving communication skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that communication skills training among clinicians who care for patients with cancer improves empathy, encourages use of more open questions and reduces the likelihood that the clinician states facts without tailoring the response to the patient's emotions or offering support [31]. An evidence-based model known as the “Four Habits Model” provides a simple approach to training on fundamental clinician–patient communication skills [32, 33]. This model focuses on four key habits required by clinicians and the skills associated with them, as well as providing techniques and examples (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

The Four Habits Model for clinician–patient communication

Communication skills guidelines recognise that breaking bad news is a complex communication that is easily affected by emotions (both the patient's and the clinician's) and for which many clinicians feel unprepared [34]. It is important that clinicians resist the temptation to reduce the patient's immediate distress by downplaying the serious nature of the disease, deflecting difficult questions or rushing through the conversation; rather, the patients’ questions and emotions should be addressed with empathy [35]. The SPIKES (Setting, Perception, Invitation for information, Knowledge, Empathy, Strategy and Summary) protocol is a skills-based, patient-centred process for breaking bad news [36], which has been shown to reflect the perspectives of patients with several life-changing diseases, including cancer [37]. Emphasis is given to getting the setting right, understanding the patient's perception of their illness, providing knowledge and support, responding to the patient's emotions with empathy, and providing a strategy for the future (figure 2). A series of videos explaining the SPIKES protocol is available at www.pulmonaryfibrosis360.com. In addition to aiding communications around diagnosis and prognosis, the SPIKES framework may be used to guide other discussions that require an empathetic approach, for example, those around disease progression [38]. A survey of 226 patients in whom the SPIKES protocol had been used during disclosure of a malignant neoplasm diagnosis found that while the protocol was applied well, the Perception and Invitation steps, which allow the clinician to recognise the patient's viewpoint and adjust their approach, were applied less well than the other steps [39]; this may indicate the areas that present the greatest challenges to clinicians and that require most training.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

The six steps of SPIKES for breaking bad news [36]. A series of videos explaining the SPIKES protocol in more detail is available at www.pulmonaryfibrosis360.com

It should be acknowledged that while the oncology field has prioritised communication and advanced care planning, implementation in practice remains suboptimal [40].

What steps can clinicians take to improve communications with patients with IPF?

Clinicians should plan in advance how they will deliver the necessary information to the patient, being aware of the temptation to down-play the seriousness of the situation, while also taking care not to convey only the worst-case scenario. While some information should be given at diagnosis, given the wealth of information that needs to be conveyed and the variable evolution of IPF and comorbidities, there may be value in pacing additional information as the disease progresses, in line with the preferences of the patient [25, 41]. Studies in a range of diseases have shown that patients are unable to recall several pieces of information provided at the same time and that recall may be worse in patients with a poorer prognosis [42–44]. A study based on focus groups with patients with IPF and their carers concluded that at the point of diagnosis, the key messages that should be communicated are 1) what IPF is, 2) that there is no cure, 3) that IPF is chronic and progressive, and 4) that there are effective treatments to slow progression and manage symptoms [25]. A follow-up appointment 1–4 weeks later may be a better time to have a lengthy discussion about prognosis and treatment options [25]. Important information should be repeated at multiple visits and the patient's understanding confirmed; this not only ensures that the patient understands the information provided but may also help to improve their recall of it [45].

Provision of information should be individualised at every stage, taking account of the patient's preferences and priorities. Not all patients want to know everything and patients’ consent to receive more information should be solicited. Most patients want to know their test results, such as spirometry, but these need to be explained in a way that ensures that patients can understand them in the context of having a progressive disease; other patients find that receiving “too much” information increases their anxiety. Prognostication not only plays a role when discussing diagnosis but also during follow-up, when response to therapy and events such as exacerbations, increasing frailty or comorbidities may affect prognosis. The availability of new treatments, participation in research or treatment of comorbidities may provide hope or setbacks for patients.

Clinicians need to be prepared to manage psychological issues as needed over the course of the disease and encourage use of counselling services where these are available. Specific events, such as the initiation of supplemental oxygen, may have a particular impact on the patient and require specific counselling [46]. Questions about the side-effects of medications should be answered in a prompt and practical manner. Palliative and supportive care should be provided as needed and not restricted to end-of-life care [47, 48].

The patient's partner, family member or carer should not just be viewed as a source of support for the patient but as a person who may have questions and worries of their own [2]. During a consultation, it may be valuable to repeat a comment or question back to the patient or caregiver, perhaps using different phrasing, to reassure them that you understand what they are saying and see them as a partner in shared decision-making. Where there is disagreement, or simply a number of options, this should be clearly explained to avoid miscommunication.

Conversations with patients should be ended in a way that does not leave the patient feeling “dismissed”. A question such as “Tell me what you are going to tell your loved ones about what we discussed today” can be valuable to bring closure to the discussion and provide an opportunity to clarify any points that have been missed. Acknowledging that questions that the patient thinks of following the consultation can be answered later can be reassuring. Following a consultation, clinicians should take time to reflect on how the conversation went and what they might wish to change or add next time.

A summary of actions that physicians can take to improve communication with patients with IPF (based on the feedback from focus groups of patients and carers) is given in table 2 [25].

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Actions that specialist physicians can take to improve communication with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (proposed by focus groups of patients and carers)

Conclusions

Patients with IPF see their clinicians as a source of support and information about their disease. The variable course and poor prognosis of IPF should not prevent clinicians from having meaningful conversations with patients about their fears and needs, while acknowledging uncertainties. Effective, empathetic communication is a skill that clinicians can learn and practise. Models, tools and protocols are available that can help clinicians to improve their communication skills, including those needed in breaking bad news. More effective communication, taking into account the individual needs and preferences of the patient, can help to lessen the impact that IPF has on the lives of patients and their loved ones.

Acknowledgements

The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The authors did not receive payment for development of this article. Writing assistance was provided by Wendy Morris of FleishmanHillard, London, UK, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. The page processing charges for this article would be funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: M.S. Wijsenbeek reports grants, and non-financial and other support, with all grants and fees paid to her institution, from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hoffmann-La Roche; and other support, with all fees paid to her institution, from Galapagos NV, Novartis, Respivant and Savara. F. Bonella reports personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fujirebio, Galapagos NV, GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. L. Orsatti is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. A-M. Russell reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Hoffmann-La Roche and the Irish Lung Fibrosis Association. C. Valenzuela reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos NV and Hoffmann-La Roche. W.A. Wuyts reports grants and other support, with all fees paid to his institution, from Boehringer Ingelheim, and grants, with all fees paid to his institution, from Roche. W.F. Baile reports fees for presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim.

  • Received June 25, 2021.
  • Accepted October 10, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Senanayake S,
    2. Harrison K,
    3. Lewis M, et al.
    Patients’ experiences of coping with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and their recommendations for its clinical management. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0197660. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197660
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. van Manen MJ,
    2. Kreuter M,
    3. van den Blink B, et al.
    What patients with pulmonary fibrosis and their partners think: a live, educative survey in the Netherlands and Germany. ERJ Open Res 2017; 3: 00065-2016. doi:10.1183/23120541.00065-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Ramadurai D,
    2. Corder S,
    3. Churney T, et al.
    Understanding the informational needs of patients with IPF and their caregivers: “You get diagnosed, and you ask this question right away, what does this mean?” BMJ Open Qual 2018; 7: e000207. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000207
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Russell AM,
    2. Ripamonti E,
    3. Vancheri C
    . Qualitative European survey of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: patients’ perspectives of the disease and treatment. BMC Pulm Med 2016; 16: 10. doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0171-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Maher TM,
    2. Swigris JJ,
    3. Kreuter M, et al.
    Identifying barriers to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment: a survey of patient and physician views. Respiration 2018; 96: 514–524. doi:10.1159/000490667
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Moor CC,
    2. Wijsenbeek MS,
    3. Balestro E, et al.
    Gaps in care of patients living with pulmonary fibrosis: a joint patient and expert statement on the results of a Europe-wide survey. ERJ Open Res 2019; 5: 00124-2019. doi:10.1183/23120541.00124-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Lee JS,
    2. McLaughlin S,
    3. Collard HR
    . Comprehensive care of the patient with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2011; 17: 348–354. doi:10.1097/MCP.0b013e328349721b
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Bajwah S,
    2. Koffman J,
    3. Higginson IJ, et al.
    “I wish I knew more …” The end-of-life planning and information needs for end-stage fibrotic interstitial lung disease: views of patients, carers and health professionals. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2013; 3: 84–90. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000263
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Giot C,
    2. Maronati M,
    3. Becattelli I, et al.
    Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an EU patient survey. Curr Res Med Rev 2013: 9: 112–119. doi:10.2174/1573398X113099990010
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Hardavella G,
    2. Aamli-Gaagnat A,
    3. Frille A, et al.
    Top tips to deal with challenging situations: doctor–patient interactions. Breathe 2017; 13: 129–135. doi:10.1183/20734735.006616
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Cosgrove GP,
    2. Bianchi P,
    3. Danese S, et al.
    Barriers to timely diagnosis of interstitial lung disease in the real world: the INTENSITY survey. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 9. doi:10.1186/s12890-017-0560-x
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Hoyer N,
    2. Prior TS,
    3. Bendstrup E, et al.
    Risk factors for diagnostic delay in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Res 2019; 20: 103. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1076-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Bonella F,
    2. Wijsenbeek M,
    3. Molina-Molina M, et al.
    European IPF patient charter: unmet needs and a call to action for healthcare policymakers. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 597–606. doi:10.1183/13993003.01204-2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. The European Federation on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Related Disorders Federation
    . A snapshot of IPF care in Europe. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58abeea8f7e0ab024bc89784/t/5c32baa7032be4fbaf3585e2/1546828468973/EUIPFF_Benchmarking_Report_PDF.pdf. Date last updated: May 2019. Date last accessed: 25 January 2021.
  15. ↵
    1. Fisher JH,
    2. O'Connor D,
    3. Flexman AM, et al.
    Accuracy and reliability of internet resources for information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194: 218–225. doi:10.1164/rccm.201512-2393OC
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Lashari BH,
    2. Chan V,
    3. Shoukat U, et al.
    YouTube as a source of patient education in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a media content analysis. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2019; 9: 98–102. doi:10.1080/20009666.2019.1593779
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Ryerson CJ,
    2. Berkley J,
    3. Carrieri-Kohlman L, et al.
    Depression and functional status are strongly associated with dyspnoea in interstitial lung disease. Chest 2011; 139: 609–616. doi:10.1378/chest.10-0608
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Holland AE,
    2. Fiore JF Jr,
    3. Bell EC, et al.
    Dyspnoea and comorbidity contribute to anxiety and depression in interstitial lung disease. Respirology 2014; 19: 1215–1221. doi:10.1111/resp.12360
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Glaspole IN,
    2. Chapman SA,
    3. Cooper WA, et al.
    Health-related quality of life in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the Australian IPF Registry. Respirology 2017; 22: 950–956. doi:10.1111/resp.12989
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Brown CE,
    2. Jecker NS,
    3. Curtis JR
    . Inadequate palliative care in chronic lung disease. An issue of health care inequality. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13: 311–316. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201510-666PS
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Back AL,
    2. Arnold RM,
    3. Baile WF, et al.
    Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 453–460. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.5.453
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Boissy A,
    2. Windover AK,
    3. Bokar D, et al.
    Communication skills training for physicians improves patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31: 755–761. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3597-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Epstein RM,
    2. Street RL Jr.
    . Patient-centered communication in cancer care. Promoting healing and reducing suffering. NIH Publication No. 07-6225. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute, 2007. Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/
    1. Wuyts WA,
    2. Peccatori FA,
    3. Russell A-M
    . Patient-centred management in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: similar themes in three communication models. Eur Respir Rev 2014; 23: 231–238. doi:10.1183/09059180.00001614
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Masefield S,
    2. Cassidy N,
    3. Ross D, et al.
    Communication difficulties reported by patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and their carers: a European focus group study. ERJ Open Res 2019; 5: 00055-2019. doi:10.1183/23120541.00055-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Swigris JJ,
    2. Brown KK,
    3. Abdulgawi R, et al.
    Patients’ perceptions and patient-reported outcomes in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27: 180075. doi:10.1183/16000617.0075-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Aaronson N,
    2. Elliott T,
    3. Greenhalgh J, et al.
    User's guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. www.isoqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2015UsersGuide-Version2.pdf. Date last accessed: 25 January 2021. Date last updated: January 2015.
  26. ↵
    1. Sharp C,
    2. Lamb H,
    3. Jordan N, et al.
    Development of tools to facilitate palliative and supportive care referral for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2018; 8: 340–346. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001330
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Mercer SW,
    2. Maxwell M,
    3. Heaney D, et al.
    The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract 2004; 21: 699–705. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh621
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Gilligan T,
    2. Coyle N,
    3. Frankel RM, et al.
    Patient-clinician communication: American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3618–3632. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2311
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Moore PM,
    2. Rivera S,
    3. Bravo-Soto GA, et al.
    Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7: CD003751.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Frankel RM,
    2. Stein T
    . The Four Habits Model. J Pract Manage 2001; 16: 184–191.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Stein T,
    2. Frankel RM,
    3. Krupat E
    . Enhancing clinician communication skills in a large healthcare organization: a longitudinal case study. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 58: 4–12. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Monden KR,
    2. Gentry L,
    3. Cox TR
    . Delivering bad news to patients. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2016; 29: 101–102. doi:10.1080/08998280.2016.11929380
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Back A,
    2. Arnold R,
    3. Tulsky J
    . Mastering communication with seriously ill patients. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  34. ↵
    1. Baile WF,
    2. Buckman R,
    3. Lenzi R, et al.
    SPIKES – a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist 2000; 5: 302–311. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Mirza RD,
    2. Ren M,
    3. Agarwal A, et al.
    Assessing patient perspectives on receiving bad news: a survey of 1337 patients with life-changing diagnoses. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2019; 10: 36–43. doi:10.1080/23294515.2018.1543218
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Baile WF
    . Giving bad news. Oncologist 2015; 20: 852–853. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0250
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Marschollek P,
    2. Bąkowska K,
    3. Bąkowski W, et al.
    Oncologists and breaking bad news - from the informed patients’ point of view. The evaluation of the SPIKES protocol implementation. J Cancer Educ 2019; 34: 375–380. doi:10.1007/s13187-017-1315-3
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Bestvina CM,
    2. Polite BN
    . Implementation of advance care planning in oncology: a review of the literature. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13: 657–662. doi:10.1200/JOP.2017.021246
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Overgaard D,
    2. Kaldan G,
    3. Marsaa K, et al.
    The lived experience with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a qualitative study. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 1472–1480. doi:10.1183/13993003.01566-2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Jansen J,
    2. Butow PN,
    3. van Weert JC, et al.
    Does age really matter? Recall of information presented to newly referred patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5450–5457. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2322
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Selic P,
    2. Svab I,
    3. Repolusk M, et al.
    What factors affect patients’ recall of general practitioners’ advice? BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 141. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-12-141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. McCarthy DM,
    2. Waite KR,
    3. Curtis LM, et al.
    What did the doctor say? Health literacy and recall of medical instructions. Med Care 2012; 50: 277–282. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318241e8e1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Bravo BN,
    2. Postigo JML,
    3. Segura LR, et al.
    Effect of the evaluation of recall on the rate of information recalled by patients in primary care. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 81: 272–274. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Swigris JJ
    . Transitions and touchpoints in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. BMJ Open Respir Res 2018; 5: e000317.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Kreuter M,
    2. Bendstrup E,
    3. Russell AM, et al.
    Palliative care in interstitial lung disease: living well. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 968–980. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30383-1
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Kalluri M,
    2. Claveria F,
    3. Ainsley E, et al.
    Beyond idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis diagnosis: multidisciplinary care with an early integrated palliative approach is associated with a decrease in acute care utilization and hospital deaths. J Pain Symptom Manage 2018; 55: 420–426. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.10.016
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Communicating with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: can we do it better?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Communicating with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: can we do it better?
Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, Francesco Bonella, Leticia Orsatti, Anne-Marie Russell, Claudia Valenzuela, Wim A. Wuyts, Walter F. Baile
ERJ Open Research Jan 2022, 8 (1) 00422-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00422-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Communicating with patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: can we do it better?
Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, Francesco Bonella, Leticia Orsatti, Anne-Marie Russell, Claudia Valenzuela, Wim A. Wuyts, Walter F. Baile
ERJ Open Research Jan 2022, 8 (1) 00422-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00422-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • What are the challenges in communicating with patients with IPF?
    • Could communication skills training help?
    • What can be learnt from research in patients with cancer?
    • What steps can clinicians take to improve communications with patients with IPF?
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Biomarkers for detection of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
  • Recurrence of primary disease following lung transplantation
  • Pulmonary Function Test and CT features during follow-up after SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Show more Review

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society