IMPORTANCE: Communication about end-of-life care is a core clinical skill. Simulation-based training improves skill acquisition, but effects on patient-reported outcomes are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of a communication skills intervention for internal medicine and nurse practitioner trainees on patient- and family-reported outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized trial conducted with 391 internal medicine and 81 nurse practitioner trainees between 2007 and 2013 at the University of Washington and Medical University of South Carolina. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to an 8-session, simulation-based, communication skills intervention (N = 232) or usual education (N = 240). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was patient-reported quality of communication (QOC; mean rating of 17 items rated from 0-10, with 0 = poor and 10 = perfect). Secondary outcomes were patient-reported quality of end-of-life care (QEOLC; mean rating of 26 items rated from 0-10) and depressive symptoms (assessed using the 8-item Personal Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8]; range, 0-24, higher scores worse) and family-reported QOC and QEOLC. Analyses were clustered by trainee. RESULTS: There were 1866 patient ratings (44% response) and 936 family ratings (68% response). The intervention was not associated with significant changes in QOC or QEOLC. Mean values for postintervention patient QOC and QEOLC were 6.5 (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.8) and 8.3 (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.5) respectively, compared with 6.3 (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.5) and 8.3 (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.4) for control conditions. After adjustment, comparing intervention with control, there was no significant difference in the QOC score for patients (difference, 0.4 points [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.9]; P = .15) or families (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.8 to 1.0]; P = .81). There was no significant difference in QEOLC score for patients (difference, 0.3 points [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8]; P = .34) or families (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.8]; P = .88). The intervention was associated with significantly increased depression scores among patients of postintervention trainees (mean score, 10.0 [95% CI, 9.1 to 10.8], compared with 8.8 [95% CI, 8.4 to 9.2]) for control conditions; adjusted model showed an intervention effect of 2.2 (95% CI, 0.6 to 3.8; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among internal medicine and nurse practitioner trainees, simulation-based communication training compared with usual education did not improve quality of communication about end-of-life care or quality of end-of-life care but was associated with a small increase in patients' depressive symptoms. These findings raise questions about skills transfer from simulation training to actual patient care and the adequacy of communication skills assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687349.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Communication about end-of-life care is a core clinical skill. Simulation-based training improves skill acquisition, but effects on patient-reported outcomes are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of a communication skills intervention for internal medicine and nurse practitioner trainees on patient- and family-reported outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized trial conducted with 391 internal medicine and 81 nurse practitioner trainees between 2007 and 2013 at the University of Washington and Medical University of South Carolina. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to an 8-session, simulation-based, communication skills intervention (N = 232) or usual education (N = 240). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was patient-reported quality of communication (QOC; mean rating of 17 items rated from 0-10, with 0 = poor and 10 = perfect). Secondary outcomes were patient-reported quality of end-of-life care (QEOLC; mean rating of 26 items rated from 0-10) and depressive symptoms (assessed using the 8-item Personal Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8]; range, 0-24, higher scores worse) and family-reported QOC and QEOLC. Analyses were clustered by trainee. RESULTS: There were 1866 patient ratings (44% response) and 936 family ratings (68% response). The intervention was not associated with significant changes in QOC or QEOLC. Mean values for postintervention patient QOC and QEOLC were 6.5 (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.8) and 8.3 (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.5) respectively, compared with 6.3 (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.5) and 8.3 (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.4) for control conditions. After adjustment, comparing intervention with control, there was no significant difference in the QOC score for patients (difference, 0.4 points [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.9]; P = .15) or families (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.8 to 1.0]; P = .81). There was no significant difference in QEOLC score for patients (difference, 0.3 points [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8]; P = .34) or families (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.8]; P = .88). The intervention was associated with significantly increased depression scores among patients of postintervention trainees (mean score, 10.0 [95% CI, 9.1 to 10.8], compared with 8.8 [95% CI, 8.4 to 9.2]) for control conditions; adjusted model showed an intervention effect of 2.2 (95% CI, 0.6 to 3.8; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among internal medicine and nurse practitioner trainees, simulation-based communication training compared with usual education did not improve quality of communication about end-of-life care or quality of end-of-life care but was associated with a small increase in patients' depressive symptoms. These findings raise questions about skills transfer from simulation training to actual patient care and the adequacy of communication skills assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687349.
Authors: Bernd Löwe; Robert L Spitzer; Kerstin Gräfe; Kurt Kroenke; Andrea Quenter; Stephan Zipfel; Christine Buchholz; Steffen Witte; Wolfgang Herzog Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Alison M Bays; Ruth A Engelberg; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Barbara Edlund; Phyllis Christianson; Richard W Arnold; Kim O'Connor; Erin K Kross; Lynn F Reinke; Laura Cecere Feemster; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Stewart C Alexander; James A Tulsky; J Randall Curtis Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Margaret F Clayton; Jennifer Hulett; Kirandeep Kaur; Maija Reblin; Andrew Wilson; Lee Ellington Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: F van Stiphout; J E F Zwart-van Rijkom; J Versmissen; H Koffijberg; J E C M Aarts; I H van der Sijs; T van Gelder; R A de Man; C B Roes; A C G Egberts; E W M T Ter Braak Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jared Chiarchiaro; Rachel A Schuster; Natalie C Ernecoff; Amber E Barnato; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-04