Understanding delivery of bad news in the emergency department: A scoping review
4 affiliations
- 1School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, United Kingdom
- 2School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, East Block, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- 3Emergency Department, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom
- 4Emergency Department Clinical Research Group, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Background: Breaking bad news is a core component of emergency care, but the emergency department (ED) environment of urgency, crowding, and limited privacy presents challenges for sensitive communication. Many communication frameworks originate from other specialities, but the ED has limited evidence and guidance tailored to its context. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the extent, nature, and characteristics of the literature on delivery of bad news in EDs, including terminology, frameworks, stakeholder perspectives, barriers and facilitators, educational resources, reported metrics, and evidence gaps. Methods: The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF https://osf.io/f6q59/overview). Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL) and grey literature sources were searched in July 2025. Eligible sources included empirical studies, training evaluations, reviews, guidelines, consensus statements, editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, educational articles, conference abstracts, and relevant grey literature reporting on adult patients, relatives, or clinicians in ED contexts. Data were charted and synthesised narratively. Results: From 7985 records, 156 publications were included. Studies originated from 26 countries, though the United States of America (USA) (n = 85) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 18) dominated the literature. There was a rise in publications from 2010, particularly post–COVID-19. Twenty-five communication frameworks were identified; most were adapted from oncology (with SPIKES most frequently cited). Three frameworks developed specifically for ED practice (GRIEV_ING, 8S, EMTalk) were identified. Stakeholder perspectives were unevenly represented, with a predominance of healthcare professional perspectives. Reported metrics centred on clinician confidence; patient- and family-centred studies were uncommon. Barriers to effective communication consistently included time scarcity, lack of privacy, and insufficient training. Conclusions: Research on delivering bad news in EDs is dominated by educational and simulation-based studies, and is largely clinician-centred, with limited evidence of patient and family perspectives, with no studies examining long-term outcomes. Reliance on frameworks from other specialties risks overlooking the contextual specifics of emergency care. Future research should prioritise ED-centred frameworks, patient outcomes, and systemic enablers to support compassionate, effective communication in this demanding environment.
Related
- Metabolomics in the wild: A scoping review of non-invasive methods for understanding vertebrate wildlife health and success
- Biomimetic and Natural Exosomes in Drug Delivery: A Critical Review.
- Molecular Regulators for the Wnt/β-Catenin Signalling Pathway for Bone Remodelling in Periodontitis: A Scoping Review
- Advanced Pulmonary Drug Delivery Systems: A Narrative Review
- Computational Discovery of Plant-Derived Peptides with Therapeutic Potential: A Scoping Review
BibTeX
@article{johnson2026understanding,
title = {{Understanding delivery of bad news in the emergency department: A scoping review}},
author = {Graham Johnson and Sarah Edwards and Heather Jarman and Elizabeth Peel and Marco Pino},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0358343},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358343},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Understanding delivery of bad news in the emergency department: A scoping review
AU - Graham Johnson
AU - Sarah Edwards
AU - Heather Jarman
AU - Elizabeth Peel
AU - Marco Pino
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/28
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0358343
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358343
AB - Background: Breaking bad news is a core component of emergency care, but the emergency department (ED) environment of urgency, crowding, and limited privacy presents challenges for sensitive communication. Many communication frameworks originate from other specialities, but the ED has limited evidence and guidance tailored to its context. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the extent, nature, and characteristics of the literature on delivery of bad news in EDs, including terminology, frameworks, stakeholder perspectives, barriers and facilitators, educational resources, reported metrics, and evidence gaps. Methods: The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF https://osf.io/f6q59/overview). Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL) and grey literature sources were searched in July 2025. Eligible sources included empirical studies, training evaluations, reviews, guidelines, consensus statements, editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, educational articles, conference abstracts, and relevant grey literature reporting on adult patients, relatives, or clinicians in ED contexts. Data were charted and synthesised narratively. Results: From 7985 records, 156 publications were included. Studies originated from 26 countries, though the United States of America (USA) (n = 85) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 18) dominated the literature. There was a rise in publications from 2010, particularly post–COVID-19. Twenty-five communication frameworks were identified; most were adapted from oncology (with SPIKES most frequently cited). Three frameworks developed specifically for ED practice (GRIEV_ING, 8S, EMTalk) were identified. Stakeholder perspectives were unevenly represented, with a predominance of healthcare professional perspectives. Reported metrics centred on clinician confidence; patient- and family-centred studies were uncommon. Barriers to effective communication consistently included time scarcity, lack of privacy, and insufficient training. Conclusions: Research on delivering bad news in EDs is dominated by educational and simulation-based studies, and is largely clinician-centred, with limited evidence of patient and family perspectives, with no studies examining long-term outcomes. Reliance on frameworks from other specialties risks overlooking the contextual specifics of emergency care. Future research should prioritise ED-centred frameworks, patient outcomes, and systemic enablers to support compassionate, effective communication in this demanding environment.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -