Development of the LaComm 1.0, A French medical communication analysis software: A study assessing its sensitivity to change

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer

BACKGROUND

This is the third update of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Library in 2002, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress, which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether communication skills training is effective in changing behaviour of HCPs working in cancer care and in improving HCP well-being, patient health status and satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to May 2018. In addition, we searched the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trial Registry and handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In updated versions, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating CST compared with no CST or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real or simulated people with cancer or both, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects method. For continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven trials compared CST with no CST intervention; three trials compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training; two trials compared the effect of CST and patient coaching; and one trial compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists, residents, other doctors, nurses and a mixed team of HCPs. Overall, 1240 HCPs participated (612 doctors including 151 residents, 532 nurses, and 96 mixed HCPs).Ten trials contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the intervention groups were more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; P = 0.03, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 796 participant interviews; very low-certainty evidence); more likely to show empathy towards their patients (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; P = 0.008, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 844 participant interviews; moderate-certainty evidence), and less likely to give facts only (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; P = 0.05, I² = 68%; 5 studies, 780 participant interviews; low-certainty evidence). Evidence suggesting no difference between CST and no CST on eliciting patient concerns and providing appropriate information was of a moderate-certainty. There was no evidence of differences in the other HCP communication skills, including clarifying and/or summarising information, and negotiation. Doctors and nurses did not perform differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no differences between the groups with regard to HCP 'burnout' (low-certainty evidence) nor with regard to patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills (very low-certainty evidence). Out of the 17 included RCTs 15 were considered to be at a low risk of overall bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving HCP communication skills related to supportive skills and to help HCPs to be less likely to give facts only without individualising their responses to the patient's emotions or offering support. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', the mental or physical health and satisfaction of people with cancer.

Development of the Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Patient Outcome Predictions (MD.POP) during medical encounters

OBJECTIVE

Our first objective was to develop the Multi-Dimensional analysis of Patient Outcome Predictions (MD.POP), an interaction analysis system that assesses how HCPs discuss precisely and exclusively patient outcomes during medical encounters. The second objective was to study its interrater reliability.

METHOD

The MD.POP was developed by consensus meetings. Forty simulated medical encounters between physicians and an actress portraying a patient were analysed. Interrater reliability analysis was conducted on 20 of those simulated encounters.

RESULTS

The MD.POP includes six dimensions: object, framing, value, domain, probability and form of POP. The coding method includes four steps: 1) transcription of the encounter, 2) POP identification, 3) POP dimension coding and 4) POP scoring. Descriptive analyses show that the MD.POP is able to describe verbal expressions addressing the patient's outcomes. Statistical analyses show excellent interrater reliability (Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.92 to 0.94).

CONCLUSION

The MD.POP is a reliable interaction analysis system that assesses how HCPs discuss patient medical, psychological or social outcomes during medical encounters.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION

The MD.POP provides a measure for researchers to study how HCPs communicate with patients about potential outcomes. Results of such studies will allow to provide recommendations to improve HCP's communication about patients' outcomes.

Predictors of physicians' communication performance in a decision-making encounter with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

Physicians' characteristics that influence their communication performance (CP) in decision-making encounters have been rarely studied. In this longitudinal study, predictors of physicians' CP were investigated with a simulated advanced-stage cancer patient.

METHODS

Physicians (n=85) performed a decision-making encounter with a simulated patient (SP). Their CP was calculated by analyzing encounter transcripts with validated interaction analysis systems. Potential specific psychological predictors were physicians' empathy towards the SP (Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, JSPE) and their decisional conflict about the treatment (Decisional Conflict Scale, DCS). Potential general psychological predictors were physicians' empathy towards cancer patients (JSPE), their decisional conflict about cancer patients' treatments (DCS), and their affective reactions to uncertainty (Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty, PRU).

RESULTS

Physicians' CP was predicted by their decisional conflict about the SP's treatment (DCS) (β=0.41; p< 0.001) and their affective reactions to uncertainty regarding cancer treatments (PRU) (β=-0.31; p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

During encounters with advanced-stage cancer patients, physicians' awareness of uncertainty about which treatments to consider may facilitate their communication performance, whereas physicians' affective reactions to uncertainty may inhibit their performance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians' decisional conflict and reactions to uncertainty should be addressed in communication skills training programs.

Communication about uncertainty and hope: A randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program for physicians caring for cancer patients

Background

Although previous studies have reported the efficacy of communication skills training (CST) programs, specific training addressing communication about uncertainty and hope in oncology has not yet been studied. This paper describes the study protocol of a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a CST program aimed at improving physician ability to communicate about uncertainty and hope in encounters with cancer patients.

Methods/design

Physician participants will be randomly assigned in groups (n = 3/group) to a 30-h CST program (experimental group) or to a waiting list (control group). The training program will include learner-centered, skills-focused, practice-oriented techniques. Training efficacy is assessed in the context of an encounter with a simulated advanced stage cancer patient at baseline and after the CST for the experimental group, and after four months for the waiting-list group. Efficacy assessments will include communicational, psychological and physiological measures. Group-by-time effects will be analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 60 (30 experimental and 30 control) participants will be sufficient to detect effects.

Discussion

The current study will aid in the development of effective CST programs to improve physician ability to communicate about uncertainty and hope in encounters with cancer patients.

Trial registration

US Clinical Trials Register NCT02836197.

Improving communication in cancer pain management nursing: a randomized controlled study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program

PURPOSE

Effective communication is needed for optimal cancer pain management. This study assessed the efficacy of a general communication skills training program for oncology nurses on communication about pain management.

METHODS

A total of 115 nurses were randomly assigned to a training group (TG) or control group (CG). The assessment included the recording of interviews with a simulated cancer patient at baseline for both groups and after training (TG) or 3 months after baseline (CG). Two psychologists rated the content of interview transcripts to assess cancer pain management communication. Group-by-time effects were measured using a generalized estimating equation.

RESULTS

Trained nurses asked the simulated patient more questions about emotions associated with pain (relative rate [RR] = 4.28, p = 0.049) and cognitions associated with pain treatment (RR = 3.23, p < 0.001) and used less paternalistic statements about cancer pain management (RR = 0.40, p = 0.006) compared with untrained nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

The general communication skills training program improved only a few of the communication strategies needed for optimal cancer pain management in nursing. General communication skills training programs should be consolidated using specific modules focusing on communication skills related to cancer pain management.

Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2004, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses have been proposed and are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether CST is effective in improving the communication skills of HCPs involved in cancer care, and in improving patient health status and satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2012, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL to February 2012. The original search was conducted in November 2001. In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and relevant conference proceedings for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In this updated version, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating 'CST' compared with 'no CST' or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real and/or simulated patients with cancer, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects model and, for continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs (42 records), conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven studies compared CST with no CST intervention, three studies compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training, and one study compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists (six studies), residents (one study) other doctors (one study), nurses (six studies) and a mixed team of HCPs (one study). Overall, 1147 HCPs participated (536 doctors, 522 nurses and 80 mixed HCPs).Ten studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the CST group were statistically significantly more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (five studies, 679 participant interviews; P = 0.04, I² = 65%) and more likely to show empathy towards patients (six studies, 727 participant interviews; P = 0.004, I² = 0%); we considered this evidence to be of moderate and high quality, respectively. Doctors and nurses did not perform statistically significantly differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no statistically significant differences in the other HCP communication skills except for the subgroup of participant interviews with simulated patients, where the intervention group was significantly less likely to present 'facts only' compared with the control group (four studies, 344 participant interviews; P = 0.01, I² = 70%).There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to outcomes assessing HCP 'burnout', patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills. Patients in the control group experienced a greater reduction in mean anxiety scores in a meta-analyses of two studies (169 participant interviews; P = 0.02; I² = 8%); we considered this evidence to be of a very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving some types of HCP communication skills related to information gathering and supportive skills. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', patients' mental or physical health, and patient satisfaction.

Transfer of communication skills to the workplace during clinical rounds: impact of a program for residents

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Communication with patients is a core clinical skill in medicine that can be acquired through communication skills training. Meanwhile, the importance of transfer of communication skills to the workplace has not been sufficiently studied. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a 40-hour training program designed to improve patients' satisfaction and residents' communication skills during their daily clinical rounds.

METHODS

Residents were randomly assigned to the training program or to a waiting list. Patients' satisfaction was assessed with a visual analog scale after each visit. Transfer of residents' communication skills was assessed in audiotaped actual inpatient visits during a half-day clinical round. Transcripted audiotapes were analyzed using content analysis software (LaComm). Training effects were tested with Mann-Whitney tests and generalized linear Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight residents were included. First, patients interacting with trained residents reported a higher satisfaction with residents' communication (Median=92) compared to patients interacting with untrained residents (Median=88) (p=.046). Second, trained residents used more assessment utterances (Relative Risk (RR)=1.17; 95% Confidence intervals (95%CI)=1.02-1.34; p=.023). Third, transfer was also observed when residents' training attendance was considered: residents' use of assessment utterances (RR=1.01; 95%CI=1.01-1.02; p=.018) and supportive utterances (RR=0.99; 95%CI=0.98-1.00; p=.042) (respectively 1.15 (RR), 1.08-1.23 (95%CI), p<.001 for empathy and 0.95 (RR), 0.92-0.99 (95%CI), p=.012 for reassurance) was proportional to the number of hours of training attendance.

CONCLUSION

The training program improved patients' satisfaction and allowed the transfer of residents' communication skills learning to the workplace. Transfer was directly related to training attendance but remained limited. Future studies should therefore focus on the improvement of the efficacy of communication skills training in order to ensure a more important training effect size on transfer.