Core components of Communication Skills Training in oncology: A synthesis of the literature contrasted with consensual recommendations

Participative development and evaluation of a communication skills-training program for oncologists-patient perspectives on training content and teaching methods

Background

Using the 6-step approach to curriculum development for medical education, we developed a communication skills training (CST) curriculum for oncology and evaluated this curriculum from the perspective of cancer patients.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative interview study with cancer patients, collecting data using semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews with a short standardized survey. We fully transcribed the audiotaped interviews and conducted the content analysis using MAXQDA 2020. We analyzed the quantitative sociodemographic data descriptively.

Results

A total of 22 cancer patients participated, having a mean age of 60.6 (SD, 13.2) years and being predominantly female (55%). The patients believed that the CST curriculum addressed important aspects of patient-centered communication in cancer care. They emphasized the importance of physicians acquiring communication skills to establish a trusting relationship between doctor and patient, show empathy, inform patients, and involve them in treatment decisions. The patients had some doubts concerning the usefulness of strict protocols or checklists (e.g., they feared that protocol adherence might disturb the conversation flow).

Discussion

Although it was a challenge for some participants to take the perspective of a trainer and comment on the CST content and teaching methods, the patients provided a valuable perspective that can help overcome blind spots in CST concepts.

Teaching and assessing communication skills in the postgraduate medical setting: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Poor communication skills can potentially compromise patient care. However, as communication skills training (CST) programs are not seen as a priority to many clinical departments, there is a discernible absence of a standardised, recommended framework for these programs to be built upon. This systematic scoping review (SSR) aims to gather prevailing data on existing CSTs to identify key factors in teaching and assessing communication skills in the postgraduate medical setting.

METHODS

Independent searches across seven bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) were carried out. Krishna's Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) was used to guide concurrent thematic and content analysis of the data. The themes and categories identified were compared and combined where possible in keeping with this approach and then compared with the tabulated summaries of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-five thousand eight hundred ninety-four abstracts were identified, and 151 articles were included and analysed. The Split Approach revealed similar categories and themes: curriculum design, teaching methods, curriculum content, assessment methods, integration into curriculum, and facilitators and barriers to CST. Amidst a wide variety of curricula designs, efforts to develop the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes set out by the ACGME current teaching and assessment methods in CST maybe categorised into didactic and interactive methods and assessed along Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Learning Evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

A major flaw in existing CSTs is a lack of curriculum structure, focus and standardisation. Based upon the findings and current design principles identified in this SSR in SEBA, we forward a stepwise approach to designing CST programs. These involve 1) defining goals and learning objectives, 2) identifying target population and ideal characteristics, 3) determining curriculum structure, 4) ensuring adequate resources and mitigating barriers, 5) determining curriculum content, and 6) assessing learners and adopting quality improvement processes.

The CORE (Consensus on Relevant Elements) Approach to Determining Initial Core Components of an Innovation

Identifying an intervention's core components is indispensable to gauging whether an intervention is implemented with fidelity and/or is modified; it is often a multi-stage process, starting with the first stage of identifying an initial set of core components that are gradually refined. This first stage of identifying initial core components has not been thoroughly examined. Without a clear set of steps to follow, interventions may vary in the rigor and thought applied to identifying their initial core components. We devised the CORE (Consensus on Relevant Elements) approach to synthesize opinions of intervention developers/implementers to identify an intervention's initial core components, particularly applicable to innovative interventions. We applied CORE to a peer-based intervention that aids military veterans with post-incarceration community reintegration. Our CORE application involved four intervention developers/implementers and two moderators to facilitate the seven CORE steps. Our CORE application had two iterations, moving through Steps 1 (individual core component suggestions) through 7 (group discussion for consensus), then repeating Steps 4 (consolidation of component definitions) through 7. This resulted in 18 consensus-reached initial core components of the peer-based intervention, down from the 60 that the developers/implementers individually suggested at Step 1. Removed components were deemed to not threaten the intervention's effectiveness even if absent. CORE contributes to filling a critical gap regarding identifying an intervention's initial core components (so that the identified components can be subsequently refined), by providing concrete steps for synthesizing the knowledge of an intervention's developers/implementers. Future research should examine CORE's utility across various interventions and implementation settings.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a communication skills training programme for hospital physicians by a specialized palliative care service: the 'Teach to Talk' programme

BACKGROUND

There is widespread agreement about the importance of communication skills training (CST) for healthcare professionals caring for cancer patients. Communication can be effectively learned and improved through specific CST. Existing CSTs have some limitations with regard to transferring the learning to the workplace. The aim of the study is developing, piloting, and preliminarily assessing a CST programme for hospital physicians caring for advanced cancer patients to improve communication competences.

METHODS

This is a Phase 0-I study that follows the Medical Research Council framework; this paper describes the following sections: a literature review on CST, the development of the Teach to Talk training programme (TtT), the development of a procedure for assessing the quality of the implementation process and assessing the feasibility of the implementation process, and the pilot programme. The study was performed at a 900-bed public hospital. The programme was implemented by the Specialized Palliative Care Service. The programme was proposed to 19 physicians from 2 departments.

RESULTS

The different components of the training course were identified, and a set of quality indicators was developed. The TtT programme was implemented; all the physicians attended the lesson, videos, and role-playing sessions. Only 25% of the physicians participated in the bedside training. It was more challenging to involve Haematology physicians in the programme.

CONCLUSIONS

The programme was completed as established for one of the two departments in which it was piloted. Thus, in spite of the good feedback from the trainees, a re-piloting of a different training program will be developed, considering in particular the bed side component. The program should be tailored on specific communication attitude and believes, probably different between different specialties.

Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Palliative systematic treatment offers uncertain and often limited benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). This trial examined the independent and combined effect of an oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with four parallel arms (2016-2018), oncologists (n = 31) were randomized to receive SDM communication skills training or not. The training consisted of a reader, two group sessions, a booster session, and a consultation room tool (10 hours). Patients (n = 194) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive a patient communication aid or not. The aid consisted of education on SDM, a question prompt list, and a value clarification exercise. The primary outcome was observed SDM as rated by blinded observers from audio-recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported SDM, patient and oncologist satisfaction, patients' decisional conflict, patient quality of life 3 months after consultation, consultation duration, and the decision made.

RESULTS

The oncologist training had a large positive effect on observed SDM (Cohen's d = 1.12) and on patient-reported SDM (d = 0.73). The patient communication aid did not improve SDM. The combination of interventions did not add to the effect of training oncologists only. The interventions affected neither patient nor oncologist satisfaction with the consultation nor patients' decisional conflict, quality of life, consultation duration, or the decision made.

CONCLUSION

Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves both observed and patient-reported SDM. A patient communication aid does not. The incorporation of skills training in (continuing) educational programs for medical oncologists is likely to stimulate the widely advocated uptake of shared decision making in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry NTR 5489.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and often small benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). SDM is increasingly advocated for ethical reasons and for its beneficial effect on patient outcomes. Few initiatives to stimulate SDM are evaluated in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial shows that training medical oncologists improves both observed and patient-reported SDM in clinical encounters (n = 194). A preconsultation communication aid for patients did not add to the effect of training oncologists. SDM training effectively changes oncologists' practice and should be implemented in (continuing) educational programs.

Patient-Clinician Communication Issues in Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Cancer

The delivery of palliative care to patients with advanced cancer and their families, whether done by oncology clinicians or palliative care clinicians, requires patient-centered communication. Excellent communication can introduce patients and families to palliative care in a nonthreatening way, build patient trust, enable symptom control, strengthen coping, and guide decision making. This review covers deficiencies in the current state of communication, patient preferences for communication about palliative care topics, best practices for communication, and the roles of education and system intervention. Communication is a two-way, relational process that is influenced by context, culture, words, and gestures, and it is one of the most important ways that clinicians influence the quality of medical care that patients and their families receive.

Dealing with death in cancer care: should the oncologist be an amicus mortis?

The way death is (not) dealt with is one of the main determinants of the current crisis of cancer care. The tendency to avoid discussions about terminal prognoses and to create unrealistic expectations of fighting death is seriously harming patients, families and healthcare professionals, and the delivery of high-quality and equitable care. Drawing on different literature sources, we explore key dimensions of the taboo of death: medical, policy, cultural. We suggest that the oncologist, from a certain moment, could take on the role of amicus mortis, a classical figure in the past times, and thus accompanying patients towards the end of their life through palliation and linking them to psychosocial and ethical/existential resources. This presupposes the implementation of Supportive Care in Cancer and the ethical idea of relational autonomy based on understanding patients' needs considering their sociocultural contexts. It is also key to encourage public conversations beyond the area of medicine to re-integrate death into life.

The experiences of patients and their family members when receiving bad news about cancer: A qualitative meta-synthesis

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative meta-synthesis explored the subjective experiences of patients and their family members when receiving bad news about cancer, with a focus on what was important to them during this process and making future recommendations.

METHODS

A search of five electronic databases yielded 587 different records that resulted in 88 articles assessed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. With the supplement of four additional records, 29 articles were analysed using thematic synthesis. A quality appraisal checklist was used to provide further information about the included articles.

RESULTS

Patients and family members experienced receiving bad news as a process that involved three phases, labelled as follows: "preparation", "delivery", and "adjusting and coping". The "preparation" phase had four themes: the setting, developing a relationship, knowing the patient, and forewarning. Four themes were identified during the "delivery" phase: emotional reactions, empathy not sympathy, active participation, and understanding. "Adjusting and coping" comprised four themes: hope, holistic support, being a protector, and ongoing relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving bad news is a significant experience for patients and family members. They want bad news delivered in an appropriate setting, in a manner consistent with their personal preferences, and have their psychological needs attended to within the context of an established relationship. Healthcare professionals can be assisted to deliver bad news in the best way possible by additional training and their workplace institutions providing quiet, private rooms, and sufficient time. Future research is needed to better understand family members' experiences and needs.

Moving toward the next generation of communication training in oncology: The relevance of findings from qualitative research

OBJECTIVE

The critics and recommendations for communication training in oncology call for new ideas, which may contribute to designing the next generation of training. The aim of this work was to search the literature on communication in oncology for empirically grounded observations that might be useful for the development of training approaches.

METHODS

The approach consists of identifying findings that might serve as cues for the design of the next generation of training. The literature search strategy allowed the inclusion of 68 articles.

RESULTS

Findings of the articles showed that multiple factors shape clinical communication: the functions and effects of information provision, the relational and interactional aspects of communication, its patient- and context-related dimensions, and the intrapsychic and context-related barriers hampering the patient encounter that clinicians are facing.

CONCLUSION

A way to reach all oncologists and to provide training centred on the singular needs of participants is a shift in the focus of training from communication tasks or communication-related situations to the clinician.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training should focus on the competencies and qualities to be developed by clinicians, such as being flexible, able to adapt to the singular patient, sensitive to interactional aspects of communication, which influence the clinical encounter.

Training in communication of oncology clinicians: a position paper based on the third consensus meeting among European experts in 2018

Background

Since there is sound evidence that communication skills training (CST) programs modify communication behavior of oncology clinicians, they have been widely implemented over the last decades. However, more recently, certain aspects of this training have been criticized.

Methods

Based on this background, a call to re-launch a discussion about the future of CST led to the third European consensus meeting on communication in cancer care, organized by the Swiss Cancer League. During this meeting, which brought together European experts in the field of clinical communication and training of communication in the oncology setting, oncology clinicians, representatives of the European Society of Medical Oncology and a member of the European Oncology Nursing Society, the recommendations of the second European consensus meeting were updated and expanded.

Results

The expanded recommendations recall the guiding principles of communication in cancer care, underline the important role of clinician's self-awareness, and of relational and contextual factors in clinical communication, and provide direction for the further development of communication training.

Conclusion

This third European consensus meeting defines key elements for the development of a next generation of communication training for oncology clinicians.