Effects of on-site Supportive Communication Training (On-site SCT) on doctor-patient communication in oncology: Study protocol of a randomized, controlled mixed-methods trial.
Burnout
Communication
Communication skills training
Continuing professional development
Job satisfaction
Medical education
Multidisciplinary teamwork
Oncology
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 May 2024
10 May 2024
Historique:
received:
06
11
2023
accepted:
30
04
2024
medline:
11
5
2024
pubmed:
11
5
2024
entrez:
10
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The quality of communication in oncology significantly impacts patients' health outcomes, as poor communication increases the risk of unnecessary treatment, inadequate pain relief, higher anxiety levels, and acute hospitalizations. Additionally, ineffective communication skills training (CST) is associated with stress, low job satisfaction, and burnout among doctors working in oncology. While acknowledging the importance of effective communication, the specific features of successful CST remain uncertain. Role-play and recorded consultations with direct feedback appear promising for CST but may be time-consuming and face challenges in transferring acquired skills to clinical contexts. Our aim is to bridge this gap by proposing a novel approach: On-site Supportive Communication Training (On-site SCT). The concept integrates knowledge from previous studies but represents the first randomized controlled trial employing actual doctor-patient interactions during CST. This randomized multicenter trial is conducted at three departments of oncology in Denmark. Doctors are randomized 1:1 to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group involves participation in three full days of On-site SCT facilitated by a trained psychologist. On-site SCT focuses on imparting communication techniques, establishing a reflective learning environment, and offering emotional support with a compassionate mindset. The primary endpoint is the change in percentage of items rated "excellent" by the patients in the validated 15-item questionnaire Communication Assessment Tool. The secondary endpoints are changes in doctors' ratings of self-efficacy in health communication, burnout, and job satisfaction measured by validated questionnaires. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with the doctors after the intervention to evaluate its relevance, feasibility, and working mechanisms. Doctors have been actively recruited during summer/autumn 2023. Baseline questionnaires from patients have been collected. Recruitment of new patients for evaluation questionnaires is scheduled for Q1-Q2 2024. This trial aims to quantify On-site SCT efficacy. If it significantly impacts patients/doctors, it can be a scalable CST concept for clinical practice. Additionally, qualitative interviews will reveal doctors' insight into the most comprehensible curriculum parts. April 2023 - ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05842083). April 2023 - The Research Ethics Committee at the University of Southern Denmark (23/19397).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The quality of communication in oncology significantly impacts patients' health outcomes, as poor communication increases the risk of unnecessary treatment, inadequate pain relief, higher anxiety levels, and acute hospitalizations. Additionally, ineffective communication skills training (CST) is associated with stress, low job satisfaction, and burnout among doctors working in oncology. While acknowledging the importance of effective communication, the specific features of successful CST remain uncertain. Role-play and recorded consultations with direct feedback appear promising for CST but may be time-consuming and face challenges in transferring acquired skills to clinical contexts. Our aim is to bridge this gap by proposing a novel approach: On-site Supportive Communication Training (On-site SCT). The concept integrates knowledge from previous studies but represents the first randomized controlled trial employing actual doctor-patient interactions during CST.
METHODS
METHODS
This randomized multicenter trial is conducted at three departments of oncology in Denmark. Doctors are randomized 1:1 to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group involves participation in three full days of On-site SCT facilitated by a trained psychologist. On-site SCT focuses on imparting communication techniques, establishing a reflective learning environment, and offering emotional support with a compassionate mindset. The primary endpoint is the change in percentage of items rated "excellent" by the patients in the validated 15-item questionnaire Communication Assessment Tool. The secondary endpoints are changes in doctors' ratings of self-efficacy in health communication, burnout, and job satisfaction measured by validated questionnaires. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with the doctors after the intervention to evaluate its relevance, feasibility, and working mechanisms. Doctors have been actively recruited during summer/autumn 2023. Baseline questionnaires from patients have been collected. Recruitment of new patients for evaluation questionnaires is scheduled for Q1-Q2 2024.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This trial aims to quantify On-site SCT efficacy. If it significantly impacts patients/doctors, it can be a scalable CST concept for clinical practice. Additionally, qualitative interviews will reveal doctors' insight into the most comprehensible curriculum parts.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
April 2023 - ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05842083). April 2023 - The Research Ethics Committee at the University of Southern Denmark (23/19397).
Identifiants
pubmed: 38730382
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05496-x
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-05496-x
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05842083']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Clinical Trial Protocol
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
522Subventions
Organisme : Region of Southern Jutland and Region of Zealand's Joint Research Pool
ID : R38-A1420
Organisme : The Danish Cancer Society
ID : R344-A19470
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Fallowfield L, Jenkins V. Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(11):1592–7.
doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00212-9
Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(12):1865–78.
doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00303-8
Vogel BA, Leonhart R, Helmes AW. Communication matters: the impact of communication and participation in decision making on breast cancer patients’ depression and quality of life. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):391–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.005
Ong LM, Visser MR, Lammes FB, de Haes JC. Doctor-patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;41(2):145–56.
doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00108-1
Neumann M, Edelhauser F, Tauschel D, Fischer MR, Wirtz M, Woopen C, et al. Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):996–1009.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615
Moore PM, Rivera S, Bravo-Soto GA, Olivares C, Lawrie TA. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):Cd003751.
Hashim MJ. Patient-Centered Communication: Basic Skills. Am Fam Physician. 2017;95(1):29–34.
Steffensen KD. The promise of shared decision making in healthcare. AMS Review. 2019;9(1):105–9.
doi: 10.1007/s13162-019-00137-9
Dilworth S, Higgins I, Parker V, Kelly B, Turner J. Patient and health professional’s perceived barriers to the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2014;23(6):601–12.
doi: 10.1002/pon.3474
Raldow A, Adefres B, Warso M, Shinohara E, Anand S, Domenico HJ, et al. Unsolicited patient complaints among radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists. Cancer. 2021;127(13):2350–7.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.33513
Hult A, Lundgren E, Fröjd C, Lindam A, Jangland E. Patient complaints about communication in cancer care settings: Hidden between the lines. Patient Education and Counseling. 2023;114:107838.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107838
Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF. Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2005;14(10):875–84 discussion 85–6.
doi: 10.1002/pon.947
Street RL Jr, Mazor KM, Arora NK. Assessing Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Measures for Surveillance of Communication Outcomes. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(12):1198–202.
doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.013334
Ramirez AJ, Graham J, Richards MA, Cull A, Gregory WM, Leaning MS, et al. Burnout and psychiatric disorder among cancer clinicians. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(6):1263–9.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.1995.244
Wallace JE, Lemaire JB, Ghali WA. Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1714–21.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61424-0
Shanafelt TD, Noseworthy JH. Executive Leadership and Physician Well-being: Nine Organizational Strategies to Promote Engagement and Reduce Burnout. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(1):129–46.
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.004
Barth J, Lannen P. Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1030–40.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq441
Bos-van den Hoek DW, Visser LNC, Smets EMA, Henselmans I. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals in oncology over the past decade: a systematic review of reviews. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2019;13(1):33–45.
doi: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000409
Delvaux N, Merckaert I, Marchal S, Libert Y, Conradt S, Boniver J, et al. Physicians’ communication with a cancer patient and a relative: a randomized study assessing the efficacy of consolidation workshops. Cancer. 2005;103(11):2397–411.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21093
Anderson PA. Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young? J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(2):154–8.
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-11-000295.1
Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Feedback in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(Suppl 2):460.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02280-5
Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Saul J, Duffy A, Eves R. Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9307):650–6.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07810-8
Ammentorp J, Sabroe S, Kofoed PE, Mainz J. The effect of training in communication skills on medical doctors’ and nurses’ self-efficacy. A randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(3):270–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.12.012
Finset A, Ekeberg Ø, Eide H, Aspegren K. Long term benefits of communication skills training for cancer doctors. Psychooncology. 2003;12(7):686–93.
doi: 10.1002/pon.691
Gulbrandsen P, Jensen BF, Finset A, Blanch-Hartigan D. Long-term effect of communication training on the relationship between physicians’ self-efficacy and performance. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):180–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.015
Bragard I, Etienne AM, Merckaert I, Libert Y, Razavi D. Efficacy of a communication and stress management training on medical residents’ self-efficacy, stress to communicate and burnout: a randomized controlled study. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(7):1075–81.
doi: 10.1177/1359105310361992
Bragard I, Libert Y, Etienne AM, Merckaert I, Delvaux N, Marchal S, et al. Insight on variables leading to burnout in cancer physicians. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25(1):109–15.
doi: 10.1007/s13187-009-0026-9
Hession N, Habenicht A. Clinical supervision in oncology: A narrative review. Health Psychol Res. 2020;8(1):8651.
doi: 10.4081/hpr.2020.8651
Bylund CL, Brown RF, Lubrano di Ciccone B, Diamond C, Eddington J, Kissane DW. Assessing facilitator competence in a comprehensive communication skills training programme. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):342–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03302.x
Heaven C, Clegg J, Maguire P. Transfer of communication skills training from workshop to workplace: the impact of clinical supervision. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):313–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.08.008
Moller JE, Kjaer LB, Helledie E, Nielsen LF, Malling BV. Transfer of communication teaching skills from university to the clinical workplace - does it happen? A mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):433.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02834-1
Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3):333–42.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.005
Iversen ED, Steinsbekk A, Falbe Vind B, Bangsgaard A, Cold S, Ammentorp J. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), developing a Danish and Norwegian version. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(10):748–51.
Silverman J, Kurtz S, Draper J. Skills for Communicating with Patients (3rd ed.). CRC Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781910227268 .
Kurtz SM, Silverman JD. The Calgary—Cambridge Referenced Observation Guides: an aid to defining the curriculum and organizing the teaching in communication training programmes. Med Educ. 1996;30(2):83–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1996.tb00724.x
Altrichter H, Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Zuber-Skerritt O. The concept of action research. Learn Org. 2002;9:125–31.
doi: 10.1108/09696470210428840
Raelin JA. Action Learning and Action Science: Are They Different? Organ Dyn. 1997;26:21–34.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90025-5
Argyris Ch, Schön DA. “Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.” Reis, no. 77/78 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/40183951 .
Benner P. From Novice To Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Am J Nurs. 1984. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000446-198412000-00025 .
Eraut M. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70(Pt 1):113–36.
doi: 10.1348/000709900158001
Olteanu C. Reflection-for-action and the choice or design of examples in the teaching of mathematics. Math Educ Res J. 2017;2017(29):349–67.
doi: 10.1007/s13394-017-0211-9
Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1st ed.). Routledge. 1992. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473 .
Gilbert P. The Evolution and Social Dynamics of Compassion. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2015;9(6):239–54.
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12176
Gilbert P. Explorations into the nature and function of compassion. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28:108–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.002
Axboe MK, Christensen KS, Kofoed PE, Ammentorp J. Development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire (SE-12) measuring the clinical communication skills of health care professionals. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0798-7 .
Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005;19(3):192–207.
doi: 10.1080/02678370500297720
Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):162.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1
Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick, J. D. . Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels: Berrett-Koehler; 1994.
Heydari MR, Taghva F, Amini M, Delavari S. Using Kirkpatrick’s model to measure the effect of a new teaching and learning methods workshop for health care staff. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):388.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4421-y
Brinkmann S, Tanggaard L. Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog. 1 udg. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag; 2010. 560 s.
Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.
doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
Malterud K. Shared understanding of the qualitative research process. Guidelines for the medical researcher. Fam Pract. 1993;10(2):201–6.
doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.2.201
Giorgi A. Phenomenology and psychological research. Distributed by Humanities Press Pittsburgh, Pa. Atlantic Highlands, N.J; 1985 p. 8–22.
Arraras JI, Wintner LM, Sztankay M, Tomaszewski KA, Hofmeister D, Costantini A. EORTC QLQ-COMU26: a questionnaire for the assessment of communication between patients and professionals. Phase III of the module development in ten countries. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(5):1485–94.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3536-0
McCarthy DM, Ellison EP, Venkatesh AK, Engel KG, Cameron KA, Makoul G, et al. Emergency department team communication with the patient: the patient’s perspective. J Emerg Med. 2013;45(2):262–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.07.052
Ferranti DE, Makoul G, Forth VE, Rauworth J, Lee J, Williams MV. Assessing patient perceptions of hospitalist communication skills using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). J Hosp Med. 2010;5(9):522–7.
doi: 10.1002/jhm.787
Myerholtz L, Simons L, Felix S, Nguyen T, Brennan J, Rivera-Tovar A, et al. Using the communication assessment tool in family medicine residency programs. Fam Med. 2010;42(8):567–73.