Evaluating the use of artificial intelligence and human guidance to teach generic and specialist skills in breaking bad news: A mixed methods exploration.

IF 3.9 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Miriam E Armstrong, Philip Bright, Stephen Glen, David Marshall, Michael C Jones
{"title":"Evaluating the use of artificial intelligence and human guidance to teach generic and specialist skills in breaking bad news: A mixed methods exploration.","authors":"Miriam E Armstrong, Philip Bright, Stephen Glen, David Marshall, Michael C Jones","doi":"10.1016/j.clinme.2026.100649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Breaking bad news (BBN) is specified in the General Medical Council's Generic Professional Capabilities framework, which sets out core skills to be developed alongside curricula-specified capabilities in postgraduate training. To date, a wide variety of approaches to teaching BBN have been used, however, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to learning in this field remains in its early stages and requires further investigation.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, participants and intervention: </strong>Two approaches were compared in response to the question What is the best way to break bad news?: a human-facilitated discussion versus an AI-generated response using ChatGPT-4. Both approaches produced high-level guidance condensed into short statements for online mixed methods evaluation by experienced medical educators.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and results: </strong>41 doctors from 17 specialties and eight lay representatives provided free-text commentary as part of the assessment. Overall findings were compared with popular patient-focused BBN protocols, such as SPIKES, with qualitative analysis providing more details of skills requirements for generic and specialist levels of practice by adding more depth and nuance via three themes: patient experience, professionalism and access to support. Both approaches matched well with patient-focused protocols albeit they also addressed doctors' debriefing after BBN.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, AI produced more comprehensive, highly rated guidance suitable for early careers, but qualitative evaluation highlighted the need for more specialised skills, their nature and application, plus differences in preferred style and content between approaches. The value of tailoring communication, via a personalised approach developed from real-life experience, was also confirmed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10492,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"100649"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13677254/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2026.100649","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Breaking bad news (BBN) is specified in the General Medical Council's Generic Professional Capabilities framework, which sets out core skills to be developed alongside curricula-specified capabilities in postgraduate training. To date, a wide variety of approaches to teaching BBN have been used, however, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to learning in this field remains in its early stages and requires further investigation.

Design, setting, participants and intervention: Two approaches were compared in response to the question What is the best way to break bad news?: a human-facilitated discussion versus an AI-generated response using ChatGPT-4. Both approaches produced high-level guidance condensed into short statements for online mixed methods evaluation by experienced medical educators.

Outcome measures and results: 41 doctors from 17 specialties and eight lay representatives provided free-text commentary as part of the assessment. Overall findings were compared with popular patient-focused BBN protocols, such as SPIKES, with qualitative analysis providing more details of skills requirements for generic and specialist levels of practice by adding more depth and nuance via three themes: patient experience, professionalism and access to support. Both approaches matched well with patient-focused protocols albeit they also addressed doctors' debriefing after BBN.

Conclusions: Overall, AI produced more comprehensive, highly rated guidance suitable for early careers, but qualitative evaluation highlighted the need for more specialised skills, their nature and application, plus differences in preferred style and content between approaches. The value of tailoring communication, via a personalised approach developed from real-life experience, was also confirmed.

评估人工智能和人类指导在突发坏消息中教授通用和专业技能的使用:混合方法探索。
目的:突发坏消息(BBN)在总医学委员会的通用专业能力框架中被指定,该框架规定了在研究生培训中与课程指定能力一起开发的核心技能。迄今为止,已经使用了各种各样的BBN教学方法,然而,人工智能(AI)在这一领域的学习应用仍处于早期阶段,需要进一步研究。设计、设置、参与者和干预:在回答“什么是公布坏消息的最佳方式”这个问题时,比较了两种方法。:人类促成的讨论与使用ChatGPT-4的人工智能生成的响应。这两种方法都产生了高层次的指导,浓缩成简短的声明,供经验丰富的医学教育者在线混合方法评估。结果测量和结果:来自17个专业的41名医生和8名非专业代表提供了自由文本评论作为评估的一部分。总体研究结果与流行的以患者为中心的BBN方案(如SPIKES)进行了比较,定性分析通过三个主题:患者体验、专业精神和获得支持,增加了更多的深度和细微差别,为普通和专科水平的实践提供了更多的技能要求细节。这两种方法都与以患者为中心的方案相匹配,尽管它们也涉及医生在BBN后的汇报。结论:总体而言,人工智能提供了更全面、评价更高的指导,适合早期职业,但定性评估强调了对更专业技能的需求,它们的性质和应用,以及不同方法之间偏好的风格和内容的差异。通过从现实生活经验中发展出来的个性化方法,定制沟通的价值也得到了证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine
Clinical Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine is aimed at practising physicians in the UK and overseas and has relevance to all those managing or working within the healthcare sector. Available in print and online, the journal seeks to encourage high standards of medical care by promoting good clinical practice through original research, review and comment. The journal also includes a dedicated continuing medical education (CME) section in each issue. This presents the latest advances in a chosen specialty, with self-assessment questions at the end of each topic enabling CPD accreditation to be acquired. ISSN: 1470-2118 E-ISSN: 1473-4893 Frequency: 6 issues per year
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书