Assessing patient-centered communication in cancer care: stakeholder perspectives

General and Unique Communication Skills Challenges for Advanced Practice Providers: A Mixed-Methods Study

AIMS

Advanced practice providers are a rapidly growing sector of the health-care field. Despite their relatively new place in the medical establishment, these providers are held to high standards of education, practice, and communication skills. However, the communication needs of these practitioners are somewhat different than those of nurses or physicians. These skills are even more necessary in specialized fields where providers frequently are involved in discussions of prognosis, goals of care, and end of life.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods study.

METHODS

We completed a needs assessment of communication skills for advanced practice providers at a large cancer center in the northeastern United States from June to July 2017.

RESULTS

Participants were confident in their skills across several areas of communication, but also endorsed the need for communication skills training, particularly for challenging interactions with patients and families. Advanced practice providers described many challenges similar to those descried by other health-care providers, including general communication skills problems, navigating team dynamics, and goals-of-care planning. However, participants also endorsed communication skills needs specific to their field, including certain patient-centered challenges, perceived/real limitations of their role, serving as the "middleman," and understanding the advanced practice provider's role.

CONCLUSION

Given the general and unique communication challenges advanced practice providers in oncology face, we conclude with recommendations for further institutional and educational changes to better address these needs.

Automated rating of patient and physician emotion in primary care visits

OBJECTIVE

Train machine learning models that automatically predict emotional valence of patient and physician in primary care visits.

METHODS

Using transcripts from 353 primary care office visits with 350 patients and 84 physicians (Cook, 2002 [1], Tai-Seale et al., 2015 [2]), we developed two machine learning models (a recurrent neural network with a hierarchical structure and a logistic regression classifier) to recognize the emotional valence (positive, negative, neutral) (Posner et al., 2005 [3]) of each utterance. We examined the agreement of human-generated ratings of emotional valence with machine learning model ratings of emotion.

RESULTS

The agreement of emotion ratings from the recurrent neural network model with human ratings was comparable to that of human-human inter-rater agreement. The weighted-average of the correlation coefficients for the recurrent neural network model with human raters was 0.60, and the human rater agreement was also 0.60.

CONCLUSIONS

The recurrent neural network model predicted the emotional valence of patients and physicians in primary care visits with similar reliability as human raters.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As the first machine learning-based evaluation of emotion recognition in primary care visit conversations, our work provides valuable baselines for future applications that might help monitor patient emotional signals, supporting physicians in empathic communication, or examining the role of emotion in patient-centered care.

Understanding the use of attachment theory applied to the patient-provider relationship in cancer care: Recommendations for future research and clinical practice

Patient attachment styles may inform how patients react differently to the stress of being diagnosed with cancer, as well as how patients may desire to interact and be supported by their provider. The objectives of this study were two-fold: 1) to conduct a systematic scoping review to clarify how attachment theory is utilized and applied within the current body of research on the patient-provider relationship within cancer care, and 2) add to the existing body of literature by introducing an integrated model of patient attachment styles and patient-provider relationships for use in clinical and scholarly work. A systematic search of multiple databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, and WorldCat was conducted using variations and combinations of keywords related to patient-provider relationship, attachment style, and cancer. The nine studies included in the review were published from 2011 to 2019. The majority of studies had participant samples with multiple cancer diagnoses (n = 5) and examined attachment as an independent or predictor variable (n = 6). Results suggest that a secure attachment was predictive of a better working alliance, more perceived support, less general distress, higher levels of trust and satisfaction with healthcare providers when compared to patients with an insecure attachment style. Data from the current review suggest that using an attachment theory framework can improve the understanding of the patient-provider relationship. We propose a conceptual model that aligns patient attachment style and patient-provider relationship types to be utilized in clinical practice in future research to tailor patient-centered cancer care.

Lung cancer and family-centered concerns

BACKGROUND

Genetic and environmental interactions predispose certain groups to lung cancer, including families. Families or caregiving units experience the disease interdependently. We have previously evaluated the concerns and preferences of patients in addressing the lung cancer experience and cancer risks in their families. This qualitative study evaluates the concerns and preferences of family members and caregivers of patients with lung cancer in the lung cancer experience and familial cancer risks.

METHODS

We held focus groups to discuss the format and timing of addressing these preferences and concerns. Qualitative data generated was analyzed using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Five focus groups totaling 19 participants were conducted. Seven themes were identified: (1) journey to lung cancer diagnosis has core dimensions for patient and family, (2) importance of communication between patients, families, and providers, (3) challenges for caregivers and family, (4) mixed perceptions of lung cancer causation among relatives, (5) discussion of cancer risk with relatives has complex dynamics, (6) impact of diagnosis on family health behaviors and screening, (7) role of genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Family members of patients with lung cancer are interested in discussing risk factors, prevention, and diagnoses and also would like access to other supportive services do learn about and cope with some of the stresses and barriers they experience in the family lung cancer journey. The diagnosis represents a potential teachable moment with the opportunity to reduce the risk of LC development or improve early detection in LC patient's family members.

Predictors of Satisfaction With Doctor and Nurse Communication: A National Study

Prior research indicates that effective communication between medical providers and patients is associated with a number of positive patient outcomes, yet little research has examined how ecological factors (e.g., hospital size, local demographics) influence patients' reported satisfaction with doctor and nurse communication. Given the current emphasis on improving patient satisfaction in hospitals across the United States, understanding these factors is critical to interpreting patient satisfaction and improving patient-centered communication, particularly in diverse and dense populations. As such, this study examined county-level data including population density, population diversity, and hospital structural factors as predictors of patient satisfaction with doctor and nurse communication. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), U.S. Census data, and number of hospital beds were obtained from publicly available Hospital Compare, U.S. Census, and American Hospital Directory websites, respectively. Multivariate regression modeling was performed for the individual dimensions of HCAHPS scores assessing doctor and nurse communication. Standardized partial regression coefficients were used to assess strengths of county-level predictors. County-level factors accounted for 30% and 16% of variability in patient satisfaction with doctor and nurse communication, respectively. College education (β = 0.45) and White ethnicity (β = 0.25) most strongly predicted a favorable rating of doctor and nurse communication, respectively. Primary language (non-English speaking; β = -0.50) most strongly predicted an unfavorable rating of doctor communication, while number of hospital beds (β = -0.16) and foreign-born (β = -0.16) most strongly predicted an unfavorable rating of nurse communication. County-level predictors should be considered when interpreting patient satisfaction with doctor and nurse communication and designing multilevel patient-centered communication improvement strategies. Discordant findings with individual-level factors should be explored further.

Exploring the Role of Key Workers in Cancer Care: Patient and Staff Perspectives

PURPOSE/AIMS

The key worker role in cancer services was established in England to improve the continuity of care for patients. We examined how the role has been implemented by clinical nurse specialists and how both cancer patients and nursing staff viewed its effectiveness to inform debate about the transfer of patients between clinical nurse specialists during cancer care.

DESIGN

This study was questionnaire based, with separate surveys developed for patients and staff.

METHOD

The questionnaires explored issues including implementation of the key worker role, modifications to it, and where the role was felt to have most impact. The questionnaires were completed by 101 staff members and 46 patients. The data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Perspectives on the key worker role differed between nursing staff respondents and patient respondents. Overall, patient respondents were very positive, whereas staff respondents were less so. The following is a key difference related to patient handover: 71% of patient respondents wanted the same key worker throughout their treatment, but only 28% of staff respondents did. Staff respondents wanted more training to clarify the role.

CONCLUSION

Continuity of care through an assigned key worker was highly valued by patients. Successful implementation could be better achieved through improved communication with both nursing staff and allied health professions. Where possible, cancer patients should be assigned a dedicated key worker at initial diagnosis.

A cross-sectional study of patient and provider perception of "cure" as a goal of cancer surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with advanced cancer often misperceive the purpose and likely effectiveness of cancer treatments. The aim of this study was to characterize patient and provider perceptions in the setting of surgery for potentially curable cancer.

METHODS

One hundred and six patient-surgeon dyads were surveyed about their expectations for upcoming surgery. Items scored using a Likert scale were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Patients and surgeons reported excellent communication and shared decision-making. Patients more often than surgeons perceived that surgery was "Likely" or "Very Likely" to cure their cancer (86.0% vs. 72.0%, P = 0.011), extend their lives (94.0% vs. 82.0%, P = 0.007), and relieve cancer-related symptoms (65.0% vs. 35.0%, P < 0.001). Patients less often felt that surgery would be associated with complications (33.0% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.016). Over half (53.9%) of patients believed that they were more likely to experience surgical cancer cure compared with someone else with the same diagnosis while 70.8% of surgeons declared a patient's relative chances of surgical cure "the same."

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with resectable lung and gastrointestinal cancers have more optimistic perceptions about the outcomes of an upcoming surgery than their surgeons, even in a setting of good communication and shared decision-making. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:677-683. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients' use of complementary therapies: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Communication between different health care providers (conventional and complementary) and cancer patients about their use of complementary therapies affects the health and safety of the patients. The aim of this study was to examine the qualitative research literature on the perception of and communication about the risk of complementary therapies between different health care providers and cancer patients.

METHODS

Systematic searches in six medical databases covering literature from 2000 to 2015 were performed. The studies were accessed according to the level of evidence and summarized into different risk situations. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the text data, and the codes were defined before and during the data analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine papers were included in the primary analysis and five main themes were identified and discussed. The main risk situations identified were 1. Differences in treatment concepts and philosophical values among complementary and conventional health care providers. 2. Adverse effects from complementary products and herbs due to their contamination/toxicity and interactions with conventional cancer treatment. 3. Health care physicians and oncologists find it difficult to recommend many complementary modalities due to the lack of scientific evidence for their effect. 4. Lack of knowledge and information about complementary and conventional cancer treatments among different health care providers.

CONCLUSION

The risk of consuming herbs and products containing high level of toxins is a considerable threat to patient safety (direct risk). At the same time, the lack of scientific evidence of effect for many complementary therapies and differences in treatment philosophy among complementary and conventional health care providers potentially hinder effective communication about these threats with mutual patients (indirect risk). As such, indirect risk may pose an additional risk to patients who want to combine complementary therapies with conventional treatment in cancer care. Health care providers who care for cancer patients should be aware of these risks.

Assessing patients' experiences with communication across the cancer care continuum

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relevance, performance and potential usefulness of the Patient Assessment of cancer Communication Experiences (PACE) items.

METHODS

Items focusing on specific communication goals related to exchanging information, fostering healing relationships, responding to emotions, making decisions, enabling self-management, and managing uncertainty were tested via a retrospective, cross-sectional survey of adults who had been diagnosed with cancer. Analyses examined response frequencies, inter-item correlations, and coefficient alpha.

RESULTS

A total of 366 adults were included in the analyses. Relatively few selected Does Not Apply, suggesting that items tap relevant communication experiences. Ratings of whether specific communication goals were achieved were strongly correlated with overall ratings of communication, suggesting item content reflects important aspects of communication. Coefficient alpha was ≥.90 for each item set, indicating excellent reliability. Variations in the percentage of respondents selecting the most positive response across items suggest results can identify strengths and weaknesses.

CONCLUSION

The PACE items tap relevant, important aspects of communication during cancer care, and may be useful to cancer care teams desiring detailed feedback.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PACE is a new tool for eliciting patients' perspectives on communication during cancer care. It is freely available online for practitioners, researchers and others.

Trends in cancer survivors' experience of patient-centered communication: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

PURPOSE

Two Institute of Medicine reports almost a decade apart suggest that cancer survivors often feel "lost in transition" and experience suboptimal quality of care. The six core functions of patient-centered communication: managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, making decisions, fostering healing relationships, enabling self-management, and exchanging information, represent a central aspect of survivors' care experience that has not been systematically investigated.

METHODS

Nationally representative data from four administrations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess (1) characteristics of cancer survivors (N = 1794) who report suboptimal patient-centered communication and (2) whether survivors' patient-centered communication experience changed from 2007 to 2013.

RESULTS

One third to one half of survivors report suboptimal patient-centered communication, particularly on core functions of providers helping manage uncertainty (48 %) and responding to emotions (49 %). In a fully adjusted linear regression model, survivors with more education (Wald F = 2.84, p = .04), without a usual source of care (Wald F = 11.59, p < .001), and in poorer health (Wald F = 9.08, p < .001) were more likely to report less patient-centered communication. Although ratings of patient-centered communication improved over time (p trend = .04), this trend did not remain significant in fully adjusted models.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased attention to survivorship, many survivors continue to report suboptimal communication with their health care providers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivorship communication should include managing uncertainty about future risk and address survivors' emotional needs. Efforts to improve patient-centered communication should focus on survivors without a usual source of care and in poorer health.

Associations Between Patient Perceptions of Communication, Cure, and Other Patient-Related Factors Regarding Patient-Reported Quality of Care Following Surgical Resection of Lung and Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to analyze various patient-related factors related to patient-reported quality of overall and surgical care following surgical resection of lung or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2005, 3,954 patients who underwent cancer-directed surgery for newly diagnosed lung (30.3%) or colorectal (69.7%) cancer were identified from a population- and health system-based survey of participants from multiple US regions. Factors associated with patient-perceived quality of overall and surgical care were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 56.7% of patients reported excellent quality of overall care and 67.9% of patients reported excellent quality of surgical care; there was no difference by cancer type (P > 0.05). Factors associated with lower likelihood to report excellent quality of overall and surgical care included female sex, minority race, and the presence of multiple comorbidities (all odds ratio [OR] <1, all P < 0.05). Patients who had higher levels of education (overall quality: OR 1.62; surgical quality: OR 1.26), higher annual income (overall quality: OR 1.29; surgical quality: OR 1.23), and good physical function (overall quality: OR 1.35; surgical quality: OR 1.24) were all more likely to report excellent quality of overall and surgical care (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, patients who reported their physician as having excellent communication skills (overall quality: OR 6.49; surgical quality: OR 3.74) as well as patients who perceived their cancer as likely curable (overall quality: OR 1.17; surgical quality: OR 1.11) were more likely to report excellent quality of overall and surgical care (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported quality of care is associated with several factors including race, income, and educational status, as well as physician communication and patient perception of likelihood of cure. Future studies are needed to more closely examine patient-physician relationships and communication barriers, particularly among minority patients and those with lower income and educational status.

Patient perceptions regarding the likelihood of cure after surgical resection of lung and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to characterize the prevalence of the expectation that surgical resection of lung or colorectal cancer might be curative. The authors sought to assess patient-level, tumor-level, and communication-level factors associated with the perception of cure.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2005, a total of 3954 patients who underwent cancer-directed surgery for lung (30.3%) or colorectal (69.7%) cancer were identified from a population-based and health system-based survey of participants from multiple US regions.

RESULTS

Approximately 80.0% of patients with lung cancer and 89.7% of those with colorectal cancer responded that surgery would cure their cancer. Even 57.4% and 79.8% of patients with stage IV lung and colorectal cancer, respectively, believed surgery was likely to be curative. On multivariable analyses, the odds ratio (OR) of the perception of curative intent was found to be higher among patients with colorectal versus lung cancer (OR, 2.27). Patients who were female, with an advanced tumor stage, unmarried, and having a higher number of comorbidities were less likely to believe that surgery would cure their cancer; educational level, physical function, and insurance status were not found to be associated with perception of cure. Patients who reported optimal physician communication scores (reference score, 0-80; score of 80-100 [OR, 1.40] and score of 100 [OR, 1.89]) and a shared role in decision-making with their physician (OR, 1.16) or family (OR, 1.17) had a higher odds of perceiving surgery would be curative, whereas patients who reported physician-controlled (OR, 0.56) or family-controlled (OR, 0.72) decision-making were less likely to believe surgery would provide a cure.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater focus on patient-physician engagement, communication, and barriers to discussing goals of care with patients who are diagnosed with cancer is needed.

Patient perceptions regarding the likelihood of cure after surgical resection of lung and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to characterize the prevalence of the expectation that surgical resection of lung or colorectal cancer might be curative. The authors sought to assess patient-level, tumor-level, and communication-level factors associated with the perception of cure.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2005, a total of 3954 patients who underwent cancer-directed surgery for lung (30.3%) or colorectal (69.7%) cancer were identified from a population-based and health system-based survey of participants from multiple US regions.

RESULTS

Approximately 80.0% of patients with lung cancer and 89.7% of those with colorectal cancer responded that surgery would cure their cancer. Even 57.4% and 79.8% of patients with stage IV lung and colorectal cancer, respectively, believed surgery was likely to be curative. On multivariable analyses, the odds ratio (OR) of the perception of curative intent was found to be higher among patients with colorectal versus lung cancer (OR, 2.27). Patients who were female, with an advanced tumor stage, unmarried, and having a higher number of comorbidities were less likely to believe that surgery would cure their cancer; educational level, physical function, and insurance status were not found to be associated with perception of cure. Patients who reported optimal physician communication scores (reference score, 0-80; score of 80-100 [OR, 1.40] and score of 100 [OR, 1.89]) and a shared role in decision-making with their physician (OR, 1.16) or family (OR, 1.17) had a higher odds of perceiving surgery would be curative, whereas patients who reported physician-controlled (OR, 0.56) or family-controlled (OR, 0.72) decision-making were less likely to believe surgery would provide a cure.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater focus on patient-physician engagement, communication, and barriers to discussing goals of care with patients who are diagnosed with cancer is needed.

A vision for using online portals for surveillance of patient-centered communication in cancer care

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is charged with providing high-quality health care, not only in terms of technical competence but also with regard to patient-centered care experiences. Patient-centered coordination of care and communication are especially important in cancer care, as deficiencies in these areas have been implicated in many cases of delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, because cancer care facilities are concentrated within the VHA system, geographical and system-level barriers may present prominent obstacles to quality care. Systematic assessment of patient-centered communication (PCC) may help identify both individual veterans who are at risk of suboptimal care and opportunities for quality improvement initiatives at the service, facility, or system-wide level. In this manuscript, we describe our vision to implement an assessment of PCC through patient self-report to improve the quality of cancer care and other health services in the VHA. We outline a possible strategy to assess PCC that leverages the VHA's existing initiative to promote use of an online personal health record for veterans (MyHealtheVet). Questionnaires administered periodically or following specific episodes of care can be targeted to assess PCC in cancer care. Assessment of PCC can also be tied to clinical and administrative data for more robust analysis of patient outcomes. Ultimately, the goal of any assessment of PCC is to gather valid, actionable data that can assist VHA clinicians and staff with providing the best possible care for veterans with cancer.

Patients' and family members' views on patient-centered communication during cancer care

OBJECTIVES

To explore patients' and family members' views on communication during cancer care and to identify those aspects of clinician-patient communication which were most important to patients and family members.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary data analysis of qualitative data from 137 patients with cancer and family members of patients with cancer. We used a modified version of the constant comparative method and coding paradigm of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Patients want sensitive, caring clinicians who provide information that they need, when they need it, in a way that they can understand; who listen and respond to questions and concerns, and who attempt to understand the patient's experience. Effective information exchange and a positive interpersonal relationship with the clinician were of fundamental importance to patients and family members. These were interrelated; for instance, failure to provide information a patient needed could damage the relationship, whereas excellent listening could foster the relationship. Information exchange and relationship were also integral to decision-making, managing uncertainty, responding to emotions, and self-management. Clinicians who were responsive to patients' needs beyond the immediate medical encounter were valued.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of cancer care today suggests that efforts to improve communication must be multilevel, acknowledging and addressing patient, clinician, organizational and policy barriers, and facilitators. Measurement tools are needed to assess cancer patients' and family members' experiences with communication over the course of cancer care to provide meaningful, actionable feedback to those seeking to optimize their effectiveness in communicating with patients with cancer.