Giving information strategically and transparently: A pilot trial of the Oncolo-GIST intervention to promote patients' prognostic understanding.

PURPOSE: Most patients with cancer lack the prognostic understanding necessary to make informed decisions. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of the Oncolo-GIST ("Giving Information Strategically and Transparently, GIST") intervention and explored its associations with patients' improved prognostic understanding. METHODS: The Oncolo-GIST intervention distills prognostic discussions into easy-to-understand talking points. Patients with metastatic cancers that progressed on ≥1 line of chemotherapy and not expected to survive 12 months (n = 31) were recruited from October 2020 through November 2022. We compared patients who discussed their progressive scans with an oncologist trained in the GIST technique or not (i.e., usual care). A primary outcome was prognostic understanding (e.g., patients reporting a life-expectancy of months) assessed within a week of the scan discussion visit. RESULTS: Oncologists (n = 4) appeared receptive to the Oncolo-GIST intervention and scored nearly perfectly on post-training tests of material mastery after a < 2-h tutorial. Post-scan discussion visit, 100% of patients who met with an Oncolo-GIST-trained clinician understood that their cancer was considered incurable (a 31% improvement from pre-visit) compared with 91% of patients meeting with usual care oncologists (an 18% improvement); 33% of patients who met with an Oncolo-GIST-trained oncologist understood that they likely had months, not years, compared to 18% in the usual care group. No statistically significant differences emerged for these changes, nor for therapeutic alliance, anxiety, or depression scores between groups. CONCLUSION: Oncolo-GIST appears to be an easily learned approach to improve prognostic understanding that neither undermines therapeutic alliances nor increases patients' anxiety or depressive symptoms. Efficacy testing in a larger trial is warranted.

Covid-19 and Increased Risk of Physician Suicide: A Call to Detoxify the U.S. Medical System.

Suicide among physicians is a longstanding problem, with risk factors exacerbated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this article, we explore suicidal thoughts and behaviors among physicians and risk factors created or intensified by the work environment, such as overwork and loss of autonomy. We discuss the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical work environment more stressful (e.g. greater exposure to traumatic experiences and employment insecurity) and, consequently, elevated physician suicide risk. We also review evidence that the medical system in the United States has not adequately protected physicians' mental health. Lack of confidentiality, stigma, cost, and time, as well as intrusive medical licensing applications, remain barriers to physicians seeking help. Work pressures imposed by insurance companies and financial incentives to increase revenue while cutting costs compound physicians' work stress. We conclude that system-wide changes to the practice of medicine and policies regarding healthcare delivery are needed to improve physicians' work environments, as is research addressing the impact of the interventions to reduce their suicidal risk. The proposed changes, and greater access to timely and confidential mental health services amid and in the aftermath of the pandemic, may prove promising approaches to reduce physicians' suicide risk.

Development of the Oncolo-GIST ("Giving Information Strategically & Transparently") Intervention Manual for Oncologist Skills Training in Advanced Cancer Prognostic Information Communication.

CONTEXT: Patient prognostic understanding is improved by oncologists' discussions of life expectancy. Most patients deem it important to discuss prognosis with their oncologists, but a minority of cancer patients within months of death report that they had such a discussion with their oncologist. OBJECTIVES: To query stakeholders about their perspectives on the clinical approach and utility of an Oncolo-GIST manualized communication intervention, designed to enhance oncologists' ability to convey the gist of prognostic information simply, clearly, and effectively in the setting of progressing solid tumors and limited life expectancy. METHODS: We obtained and analyzed feedback on the intervention from solid tumor oncology clinicians and bereaved family caregivers, soliciting opinions on the clinical approach taken in the videos, acceptability and likely impact of the instructions, and specific phrases recommended in the manual. RESULTS: Twenty stakeholders (9 clinicians, 11 caregivers) participated. All agreed that oncologists should broach prognosis with patients, balancing honesty and sensitivity. Participants also advocated for oncologists to involve interprofessional team members (e.g., nurses, social workers) when serious mental health concerns arose. After the research team's discussion of the stakeholder feedback, the manual was modified to include or exclude preferred language and approaches. CONCLUSION: The Oncolo-GIST intervention was characterized as simple and potentially effective at conveying prognoses to advanced cancer patients. Future research should determine if this approach to medical communication, which distills the essence of prognostic messages clearly and simply, is associated with improvements in patients' prognostic understanding.