Doing the hard work of learning: oncologists' enduring impressions of a year-long communication skills training program.

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined the long-term impact of communication skills training for oncologists. We developed a year-long communication skills curriculum for medical oncology fellows with the primary goals of fostering life-long learning of patient-centered communication skills and internalization of associated attitudes and beliefs. We engaged learners through reflection, narrative methods, and action methods, thereby creating a non-threatening, team-based environment. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether learners perceived that they had acquired enduring skills, attitudes, and knowledge years after they participated. METHODS: Former fellows completed an online cross-sectional survey from June to July 2019 that included demographic information, 21 items on a numerical scale, and 3 narrative prompts. Survey items pertained to 4 domains, including skills, attitudes, confidence with specific scenarios, and overall impressions. The numerical scale ranged from "strongly agree" = 1 to "strongly disagree" = 5. RESULTS: A total of 114 fellows, including 27 teaching assistants, participated in the communication skills training over 8 years. The average time between the end of the training program and completion of the survey was 5.2 years. The response rate was 68/114 (64%). Forty-one (60%, 95% CI: 49.3-73.8) fellows agreed or strongly agreed that the curriculum profoundly impacted their practice of medicine. Forty-three (64%, 95% CI: 51.5-75.5) fellows strongly agreed or agreed that they often found themselves informally sharing lessons they learned during the series. Overall average domain scores were 1.89 (SD = 0.84) for skills, 2.16 (0.79) for attitudes, 2.05 (0.81) for confidence with specific challenges, and 2.38 (0.94) for lasting impressions. Results were significantly more favorable for teaching assistants than for others. CONCLUSION: Engaging, interactive, safe, and learner-centered communication skills training has an enduring and favorable impact on oncologists' self-perceived skills, confidence with specific challenges, and attitudes.

Helpfulness of Question Prompt Sheet for Patient-Physician Communication Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter. Design, Setting, and Participants: This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022. Intervention: QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter. Results: A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Levorphanol as a Second Line Opioid in Cancer Patients Presenting to an Outpatient Supportive Care Center: An Open-label Study.

CONTEXT: Levorphanol is a potent opioid agonist and NMDA receptor blocker with minimal drug interactions, and there are few reports of its use in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the frequency of successful opioid rotation (OR) to levorphanol and the median opioid rotation ratio (ORR) from Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD). METHODS: This is a prospective, single-group, interventional study. Cancer outpatients requiring an OR and receiving a MEDD of 60-300 mg were rotated to levorphanol using a ratio of 10:1 and assessed daily for 10-day. Successful OR was defined as a 2-point improvement in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) pain score on day 10 or achieving the personalized pain goal between days 3-10 in patients with uncontrolled pain or resolution of opioid side effects (OSE) in those undergoing OR for OSE alone. The ORR to levorphanol was calculated using net-MEDD (MEDD before OR minus the MEDD of the breakthrough opioid used along with levorphanol after OR). RESULTS: Forty patients underwent OR to levorphanol, and uncontrolled pain 35/40 (87.5%) was the most common indication. The median net-MEDD and levorphanol doses were 95 and 10 mg, respectively, and 33/40 (82.5%) had a successful OR with a median (IQR) ORR of 8.56 (7.5-10). Successful OR was associated with significant improvement in ESAS and OSE scale scores. There was a strong association between MEDD and levorphanol dose. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary data that cancer patients could be successfully rotated to levorphanol using an ORR of 8.5. Levorphanol was associated with improved pain and symptom control and was well- tolerated.

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486. FINDINGS: Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group. FUNDING: National Institute of Nursing Research.

Chronic Non-Malignant Pain in Patients with Cancer Seen at a Timely Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic.

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1-2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28-41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management.

Integrating Storytelling into a Communication Skills Teaching Program for Medical Oncology Fellows.

Oncology training focuses primarily on biomedical content rather than psychosocial content, which is not surprising in light of the enormous volume of technical information that oncology fellows assimilate in a short time. Nonetheless, the human connection, and specifically communication skills, remains as important as ever in caring for highly vulnerable patients with cancer. We previously described a year-long communication skills curriculum for oncology fellows that consisted of monthly 1-hour seminars with role play as the predominant teaching method (Epner and Baile, Acad Med. 89:578-84, 2014). Over several years, we adapted the curriculum based on learner feedback and reflection by faculty and teaching assistants and consolidated sessions into quarterly 3-4-hour workshops. We now describe integrating stories into the curriculum as a way of building empathy and warming fellows to the arduous task of dealing with highly emotional content, such as conversations with young patients about transitioning off disease-directed therapy. Learners read and discussed published, medically themed stories; discussed their own patient care stories; and completed brief writing reflections and discussions. They then worked in small groups facilitated by faculty and upper level fellows who functioned as teaching assistants to work on applying specific skills and strategies to scenarios that they chose. Fellows completed anonymous surveys on which they rated the curriculum highly for relevance, value, organization, content, and teaching methods, including storytelling aspects. We conclude that sharing stories can help highly technical learners build reflective ability, mindfulness, and empathy, which are all critical ingredients of the art of medicine.

Effect of Lorazepam With Haloperidol vs Haloperidol Alone on Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial. Objective: To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016. Interventions: Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival. Results: Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (-4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (-2.3 points) (mean difference, -1.9 points [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, -1.0 mg [95% CI, -2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662.

Post-Discharge Survival Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Trials) Inpatient Unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who progress on standard therapy are potential candidates for phase I clinical trials. Due to their aggressive disease and complex comorbid conditions, these patients often need inpatient admission. This study assessed the outcomes of such patients after they were discharged to hospice care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with solid tumor malignancies who were discharged to hospice care from the inpatient service. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were included in the study cohort. All patients had metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥3. The median survival after discharge to hospice from an inpatient setting was 16 days, with a survival rate of 5% at 3 months after discharge. The median survival after the last cancer treatment was 46 days, with survival of 17% at 3 months, and 5% at 6 months. Patients with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >618 IU/L had a median post-discharge survival of 11 days versus 20 days for patients with LDH ≤618 IU/L. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer participating in phase I trials who have poor performance status and require inpatient admission have a very short survival after discharge to hospice. A high LDH level predicts an even shorter survival.

Managing body image difficulties of adult cancer patients: lessons from available research.

BACKGROUND: Body image is a critical psychosocial issue for patients with cancer because they often undergo significant changes to appearance and functioning. The primary purpose of this review article was to identify empirically-supported approaches to treat body image difficulties of adult cancer patients that can be incorporated into high-quality comprehensive cancer care. METHODS: An overview was provided of theoretical models of body image relevant to cancer patients, and findings were presented from published literature on body image and cancer from 2003 to 2013. These data were integrated with information from the patient-doctor communication literature to delineate a practical approach for assessing and treating body image concerns of adult cancer patients. RESULTS: Body image difficulties were found across patients with diverse cancer sites, and were most prevalent in the immediate postoperative and treatment period. Age, body mass index, and specific cancer treatments have been identified as potential risk factors for body image disturbance in cancer patients. Current evidence supports the use of time-limited cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions for addressing these difficulties. Other intervention strategies also show promise but require further study. Potential indicators of body image difficulties were identified to alert health care professionals when to refer patients for psychosocial care, and a framework was proposed for approaching conversations about body image that can be used by the oncologic treatment team. CONCLUSIONS: Body image issues affect a wide array of cancer patients. Providers can use available evidence combined with information from the health care communication literature to develop practical strategies for treating body image concerns of patients with cancer.

Managing body image difficulties of adult cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Body image is a critical psychosocial issue for patients with cancer because they often undergo significant changes to appearance and functioning. The primary purpose of this review article was to identify empirically-supported approaches to treat body image difficulties of adult cancer patients that can be incorporated into high-quality comprehensive cancer care. METHODS: An overview was provided of theoretical models of body image relevant to cancer patients, and findings were presented from published literature on body image and cancer from 2003 to 2013. These data were integrated with information from the patient-doctor communication literature to delineate a practical approach for assessing and treating body image concerns of adult cancer patients. RESULTS: Body image difficulties were found across patients with diverse cancer sites, and were most prevalent in the immediate postoperative and treatment period. Age, body mass index, and specific cancer treatments have been identified as potential risk factors for body image disturbance in cancer patients. Current evidence supports the use of time-limited cognitive behavioral therapy interventions for addressing these difficulties. Other intervention strategies also show promise but require further study. Potential indicators of body image difficulties were identified to alert health care professionals when to refer patients for psychosocial care, and a framework was proposed for approaching conversations about body image that can be used by the oncologic treatment team. CONCLUSIONS: Body image issues affect a wide array of cancer patients. Providers can use available evidence combined with information from the health care communication literature to develop practical strategies for treating body image concerns of patients with cancer.

Difficult conversations: teaching medical oncology trainees communication skills one hour at a time.

Difficult conversations about prognosis, end of life, and goals of care arise commonly in medical oncology practice. These conversations are often highly emotional. Medical oncologists need outstanding, patient-centered communication skills to build trust and rapport with their patients and help them make well-informed decisions. Key skills include exploring patients' perspectives, responding to emotion with empathy, and maintaining mindfulness during highly charged conversations. These skills can be taught and learned. Most previously described communication skills training curricula for oncology providers involve multiday retreats, which are costly and can disrupt busy clinical schedules. Many curricula involve a variety of oncology providers, such as physicians and nurses, at various stages of their careers. The authors developed a monthly, one-hour communication skills training seminar series exclusively for physicians in their first year of medical oncology subspecialty training. The curriculum involved a variety of interactive and engaging educational methods, including sociodramatic techniques, role-play, reflective writing, and Balint-type case discussion groups. Medical oncologists in their second and third years of training served as teaching assistants and peer mentors. Learners had the opportunity to practice skills during sessions and with patients between sessions. Learners acquired important skills and found the curriculum to be clinically relevant, judging by anonymous surveys and anonymous responses on reflective writing exercises. Results from the current curriculum are preliminary but lay the foundation for enhanced and expanded communication skills training programs in the future.