Shared decision-making needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital: a multi-level, mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.

Medical student motivation in specialised contexts.

PURPOSE: During their clinical years, medical students rotate in diverse environments, each with unique factors motivating or demotivating learning. Student motivation to learn in specialised clinical settings has not been robustly described. One framework to understand motivation to learn is self-determination theory (SDT), which posits that intrinsic motivation requires fulfilment of three innate psychological needs: competence, relatedness and autonomy. Referencing SDT, the authors aimed to understand factors influencing student motivation to learn in the specialised context of internal medicine (IM) subspecialty consult services, with the goal of optimising teaching and learning during these experiences. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with 12 fourth-year medical students who had completed at least one inpatient IM subspecialty consult elective at the University of California, San Francisco, in 2020-2021. Students discussed factors that promoted and hindered their learning and motivation. The authors performed abductive thematic analysis using SDT as a sensitising framework. RESULTS: Three themes were identified and provided insight into how student motivation to learn can be supported: teaching at the appropriate level; integration into the team and workflow; and self-directed learning and career exploration. These themes were overlaid onto the needs of SDT, demonstrating that, in specialised clinical contexts, fulfilment of the needs is interconnected. CONCLUSION: This study provided insight into how students' innate needs can be satisfied in the learning environment of IM subspecialty consult electives, thereby promoting students' intrinsic motivation. Based on insights from the study, the authors offer recommendations for how educators can optimise student motivation to learn.

Web-Based Scaffolds: The Feasibility of a Constructivist Approach to Oncology Fellow Learning.

In this 2-institution feasibility pilot, oncology fellows used and updated freely available web-based learning tools (scaffolds) in a constructivist fashion.

Launching an International Community of Practice in Hematology/Oncology Medical Education.

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. While the field of hematology/oncology has historically prioritized clinical care and biomedical research, medical education has received increasing attention within hematology/oncology in recent years. In 2018, ASCO launched the Education Scholars Program to train hematology/oncology clinicians in the science of teaching and learning. However, the number of hematology/oncology educators nationally and internationally far exceeds the capacity of the Education Scholars Program to train them. In addition, hematology/oncology educators often lack sufficient mentorship and guidance at their own institutions to pursue their chosen career path effectively. To ensure high-quality clinical care and research for generations to come, attention must be paid to improving support for hematology/oncology educators. Therefore, supported by ASCO, we developed an international medical education (Med Ed) CoP for hematology/oncology educators with the purpose of providing them with support, community, mentorship, resources, and scholarly opportunities in medical education. In this article, we describe the development of the Med Ed CoP using a three-stage framework (Establish-Grow-Sustain) including successes, challenges, and reflections. By supporting the needs of hematology/oncology educators, the Med Ed CoP will serve as a home for all who contribute to the field of hematology/oncology.

How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.

PURPOSE: Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk. METHOD: In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift. RESULTS: Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.

Outcomes and Adverse Events in Patients with Cancer after Diagnosis of Immunotherapy-Associated Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-induced diabetes mellitus (CPI-DM) is a rare immune-related adverse event (irAE). Patients and providers fear that continuing CPIs puts patients at risk for additional irAEs and thus may discontinue therapy. Currently, there are little data to inform this decision. Therefore, this study aims to elucidate whether discontinuing CPIs after diagnosis of CPI-DM impacts the development of future irAEs and cancer outcomes such as progression and death. Patients who developed CPI-DM during cancer treatment at UCSF from 1 July 2015 to 5 July 2023 were analyzed for cancer outcomes and irAE development. Fisher's exact tests, Student t-tests, Kaplan-Meier methods, and Cox regression were used as appropriate. Of the 43 patients with CPI-DM, 20 (47%) resumed CPIs within 90 days of the irAE, 4 (9%) patients restarted after 90 days, and 19 (44%) patients never restarted. Subsequent irAEs were diagnosed in 9 of 24 (38%) who resumed CPIs and 3 of 19 (16%) who discontinued CPIs (p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in death (p = 0.74) or cancer progression (p = 0.55) between these two groups. While our single-institution study did not show worse cancer outcomes after discontinuing CPIs, many variables can impact outcomes, which our study was not adequately powered to evaluate. A nuanced approach is needed to decide whether to continue CPI treatment after a severe irAE like CPI-DM.

Identifying Strategies for the Use of Gender and Sex Language in Clinical One-Liners.

Purpose: The "one-liner," commonly used in clinical communications, summarizes a patient's identity, presenting condition, medical history, and clinical findings. Imprecise, inconsistent use of gender and sex information in one-liners threatens the provision of affirming care to transgender, nonbinary, gender-expansive, and intersex patients and may exacerbate health care disparities. This study aimed to generate guidance for communicating gender and sex information in one-liners. Methods: This is an explanatory sequential, equal status mixed methods study of transgender, nonbinary, gender-expansive, and intersex people and clinicians caring for this population. Survey participants rated one-liners on a five-point Likert-type scale of appropriateness, considering affirmation and clinical utility, and provided open-ended comments. We conducted two focus groups with survey respondents to explore survey results and performed a thematic analysis of survey comments and focus group transcripts. Results: Survey respondents included 57 clinicians and 80 nonclinicians. One-liners containing patient pronouns were rated most appropriate, and appropriate patient descriptors included self-described gender identity or gender-neutral terms. In scenarios where patient sex information was not pertinent to the chief concern (CC), one-liners containing no sex information were rated most appropriate. Four themes were identified: inclusion of sex information based on relevance to the CC, accurate patient representation, influence of clinical setting, and risk of harm from inaccurate one-liners. Conclusion: This study generated data to support the appropriate use of gender and sex language in one-liners. Clinicians, educators, and trainees may use these findings to compose one-liners that are affirming and clinically useful for patients of diverse gender and sex identities.