Vasantham Annadurai1, Cardinale B Smith2,3, Nina Bickell4,5,6, Stephen H Berns7, Amy S Kelley3, Elizabeth Lindenberger3,8, Laura J Morrison9, Jacqueline K Yuen10, Natalia Egorova4, Rebeca Franco4, Anthony L Back11, Laura P Gelfman3,8. 1. Department of Medicine, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. Division of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 3. Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 5. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 7. Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, The Robert Larner, MD College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 8. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA. 9. Yale Palliative Care Program, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 10. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 11. Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
Background: Oncologists routinely have opportunities for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions with patients. GoC discussions increase the likelihood that patients receive care consistent with their values. However, oncologists often feel ill-equipped to discuss end-of-life care. Objective: To assess the impact of a communication training and coaching intervention (INT) for oncologists during GoC discussions. Design: We randomized oncologists to usual care (UC) or a communication skills training INT, which consisted of an interactive training session and four joint visits with communication coaches. Setting/Subjects: Solid tumor oncologists seeing advanced cancer patients at four hospitals in New York and Connecticut. Measurements: Three blinded coders evaluated recorded encounters before and after INT using a validated tool to assess skill attainment. Results: Oncologists (n = 22) were 32% female and averaged 46 years of age. In baseline visits, INT oncologists (n = 11) and UC oncologists (n = 11) had no difference in the number of mean skills employed out of 8 GoC skills (INT 3.5, UC 2.4; p = 0.18). Post-INT, INT oncologists were significantly more likely to elicit patient values (55% vs. 0%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in overall mean skills employed (INT 3.4, UC 2.2; p = 0.14). Assessing for understanding, offering "I wish" statements, and providing prognosis were the least utilized skills among all oncologists. Conclusion: Our real-time communication skills coaching INT resulted in a significant increase in oncologists' ability to elicit patient values during GoC discussions, suggesting that skill acquisition can occur in the face of less intensive training. Future studies can highlight gaps leading to the lack of differences in utilization of other skills.
Background: Oncologists routinely have opportunities for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions with patients. GoC discussions increase the likelihood that patients receive care consistent with their values. However, oncologists often feel ill-equipped to discuss end-of-life care. Objective: To assess the impact of a communication training and coaching intervention (INT) for oncologists during GoC discussions. Design: We randomized oncologists to usual care (UC) or a communication skills training INT, which consisted of an interactive training session and four joint visits with communication coaches. Setting/Subjects: Solid tumor oncologists seeing advanced cancer patients at four hospitals in New York and Connecticut. Measurements: Three blinded coders evaluated recorded encounters before and after INT using a validated tool to assess skill attainment. Results: Oncologists (n = 22) were 32% female and averaged 46 years of age. In baseline visits, INT oncologists (n = 11) and UC oncologists (n = 11) had no difference in the number of mean skills employed out of 8 GoC skills (INT 3.5, UC 2.4; p = 0.18). Post-INT, INT oncologists were significantly more likely to elicit patient values (55% vs. 0%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in overall mean skills employed (INT 3.4, UC 2.2; p = 0.14). Assessing for understanding, offering "I wish" statements, and providing prognosis were the least utilized skills among all oncologists. Conclusion: Our real-time communication skills coaching INT resulted in a significant increase in oncologists' ability to elicit patient values during GoC discussions, suggesting that skill acquisition can occur in the face of less intensive training. Future studies can highlight gaps leading to the lack of differences in utilization of other skills.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer; goals of care; serious illness communication; value