Keri L. Rodriguez

Patient–oncologist communication in advanced cancer: predictors of patient perception of prognosis

Goals of workAdvanced cancer patients’ perceptions of prognosis, which are often overly optimistic compared to oncologist estimates, influence treatment preferences. The predictors of patients’ perceptions and the effect of oncologist communication on patient understanding are unclear. This study was designed to identify the communication factors that influence patient–oncologist concordance about chance of cure.Materials and methodsWe analyzed audiorecorded encounters between 51 oncologists and 141 advanced cancer patients with good (n = 69) or poor (n = 72) concordance about chance of cure. Encounters were coded for communication factors that might influence oncologist–patient concordance, including oncologist statements of optimism and pessimism.Main resultsOncologists made more statements of optimism (mean = 3.3 per encounter) than statements of pessimism (mean = 1.2 per encounter). When oncologists made at least one statement of pessimism, patients were more likely to agree with their oncologist’s estimated chance of cure (OR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.31–5.12). Statements of optimism and uncertainty were not associated with an increased likelihood that patients would agree or disagree with their oncologists about chance of cure.ConclusionsCommunication of pessimistic information to patients with advanced cancer increases the likelihood that patients will report concordant prognostic estimates. Communication of optimistic information does not have any direct effect. The best communication strategy to maximize patient knowledge for informed decision making while remaining sensitive to patients’ emotional needs may be to emphasize optimistic aspects of prognosis while also consciously and clearly communicating pessimistic aspects of prognosis.

What concerns me is... Expression of emotion by advanced cancer patients during outpatient visits.

ObjectiveCancer patients have high levels of distress, yet oncologists often do not recognize patients’ concerns. We sought to describe how patients with advanced cancer verbally express negative emotion to their oncologists.Materials and methodsAs part of the Studying Communication in Oncologist–Patient Encounters Trial, we audio-recorded 415 visits that 281 patients with advanced cancer made to their oncologists at three US cancer centers. Using qualitative methodology, we coded for verbal expressions of negative emotion, identified words patients used to express emotion, and categorized emotions by type and content.ResultsPatients verbally expressed negative emotion in 17% of the visits. The most commonly used words were: “concern,” “scared,” “worried,” “depressed,” and “nervous.” Types of emotion expressed were: anxiety (46%), fear (25%), depression (12%), anger (9%), and other (8%). Topics about which emotion was expressed were: symptoms and functional concerns (66%), medical diagnoses and treatments (54%), social issues (14%), and the health care system (9%). Although all patients had terminal cancer, they expressed negative emotion overtly related to death and dying only 2% of the time.ConclusionsPatients infrequently expressed negative emotion to their oncologists. When they did, they typically expressed anxiety and fear, indicating concern about the future. When patients use emotionally expressive words such as those we described, oncologists should respond empathically, allowing patients to express their distress and concerns more fully.

Hospital staff attributions of the causes of physician variation in end-of-life treatment intensity

Discrepancies between patient wishes and end-of-life treatment decisions have been documented, and the determinants of end-of-life treatment decisions are not well understood. Our objective was to understand hospital staff perceptions of the role of acute care hospital medical doctors in end-of-life treatment intensity. In 11 purposively sampled Pennsylvania hospitals, we completed 108 audiotaped semistructured interviews with key informants involved in decision making or discharge planning. Using grounded theory, we qualitatively analysed transcripts using constant comparison to identify factors affecting end-of-life treatment decisions. A predominant theme identified was that end-of-life treatment intensity depends on the doctor. Communication with patients and families and collaboration with other care team members also were reported to vary, contributing to treatment variation. Informants attributed physician variation to individual beliefs and attitudes regarding the end-of-life (religion and culture, determination of when a patient is dying, quality-of-life determination and fear of failing) and to socialization by and interaction with the healthcare system (training, role perception, experience and response to incentives). When end-of-life treatment depends on the doctor, patient and family preferences may be neglected. Targeted interventions may reduce variability and align end-of-life treatment with patient wishes.

How Oncologists and Their Patients with Advanced Cancer Communicate about Health-Related Quality of Life

Objective: To describe the content and frequency of communication about health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) during outpatient encounters between oncologists and their patients with advanced cancer.

Studying communication in oncologist-patient encounters: The SCOPE Trial

Study objective: Most oncologists have not received adequate training in physician-patient communication, and existing effective courses tend to be time and resource intensive. We are developing and testing a tailored CD-ROM educational intervention that includes feedback on oncologists’ own audio-recorded conversations with their advanced cancer patients. In this report, we describe the study methods and identify challenges to implementation and how these were overcome. Study design: A three-phase, randomized, controlled trial. In Phase 1, we audio-recorded oncologist-patient clinic encounters. In Phase 2, oncologists were randomly assigned to a communication CD-ROM intervention or control. Phase 3 consisted of audio-recording all participating oncologists conversing with a new sample of patients, two to 12 months after the intervention, to assess its effectiveness. Setting: Oncology clinics at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) and the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DVAMC) in Durham, NC, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) in Pittsburgh, PA. Participants: Medical, radiation and gynecological oncologists and their patients with advanced cancer. Intervention: A tailored CD-ROM that contains an interactive educational interface with reference materials and video-clips of model conversations, along with the oncologists’ own Phase 1 audio-recorded conversations. Conclusion: We present challenges and solutions to oncologist recruitment, identifying appropriate patients with advanced cancer, adapting to clinic flow, and developing a self-administered communications intervention.

Pushing up daisies: implicit and explicit language in oncologist-patient communication about death.

Goals of workAlthough there are guidelines regarding how conversations with patients about prognosis in life-limiting illness should occur, there are little data about what doctors actually say. This study was designed to qualitatively analyze the language that oncologists and cancer patients use when talking about death.Subjects and methodsWe recruited 29 adults who had incurable forms of cancer, were scheduled for a first-time visit with one of six oncologists affiliated with a teaching hospital in Australia, and consented to having their visit audiotaped and transcribed. Using content analytic techniques, we coded various features of language usage.Main resultsOf the 29 visits, 23 (79.3%) included prognostic utterances about treatment-related and disease-related outcomes. In 12 (52.2%) of these 23 visits, explicit language about death (“terminal,” variations of “death”) was used. It was most commonly used by the oncologist after the physical examination, but it was sometimes used by patients or their kin, usually before the examination and involving emotional questioning about the patient’s future. In all 23 (100%) visits, implicit language (euphemistic or indirect talk) was used in discussing death and focused on an anticipated life span (mentioned in 87.0% of visits), estimated time frame (69.6%), or projected survival (47.8%).ConclusionsInstead of using the word “death,” most participants used some alternative phrase, including implicit language. Although oncologists are more likely than patients and their kin to use explicit language in discussing death, the oncologists tend to couple it with implicit language, possibly to mitigate the message effects.

Everything I know I learned from my mother...Or not: perspectives of African-American and white women on decisions about tubal sterilization.

BACKGROUNDAfrican-American women have had higher rates of female sterilization compared to white women since its emergence as a contraceptive method. The reasons underlying this observed racial difference are unknown.OBJECTIVESThe goals of this study were to (1) explore what factors shape black and white women’s decisions about tubal sterilization as a contraceptive method and (2) generate hypotheses about the relationship of race to the decision-making process.DESIGNWe conducted six focus groups stratified by tubal sterilization status and race. During each of the audio-recorded sessions, participants were asked to discuss reasons that women choose sterilization as a contraceptive method.PARTICIPANTSThe participants of the study were 24 African-American women and 14 white women.APPROACHTranscripts of the sessions were qualitatively analyzed with particular attention to factors that might be unique to each of the two racial groups.RESULTSPersonal factors shaped black and white women’s decisions regarding tubal sterilization. Preference for a convenient, highly effective contraceptive method was the main reason to get a tubal sterilization for women of both racial groups. We also identified socio-cultural differences that might explain why black women are more likely than white women to choose tubal sterilization over other contraceptive methods. An unanticipated, but clinically important, finding was that women often reported feeling that their doctors and the health-care system served as barriers to obtaining the desired procedure.CONCLUSIONSocio-cultural differences may help explain why black and white women choose different contraceptive methods.

When pregnant patients disclose substance use: missed opportunities for behavioral change counseling.

OBJECTIVE The first obstetric visit is an opportunity to provide counseling to women with substance abuse risks, including smoking, drug use, and alcohol use. Little is known about how obstetric care providers and patients discuss these issues. Our objective was to examine patient-provider communication about substance use behaviors during these visits. METHODS We audio-taped and transcribed verbatim first prenatal visits in an outpatient hospital clinic, then qualitatively analyzed them for content and process of communication using modified grounded theory methods. RESULTS Twenty-nine providers (21 residents, 5 midwives, 3 nurse practitioners) and 51 patients participated. Twenty-five patients were smokers, 4 used alcohol, and 11 used drugs. Provider responses to smoking disclosures included discussions of risks, encouragement to quit-cut down, affirmation of attempts to quit-cut down, and referral to smoking cessation programs. Responses to alcohol or drug disclosures included only a general statement regarding risks and referral to genetics. CONCLUSION Providers were less attentive to alcohol and drugs than smoking where they had pre-established patterns of response. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Providers should discuss behavioral change strategies and motivations with pregnant patients who use drugs and/or alcohol as well as those who smoke.

A qualitative study of anticipated barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nurse-delivered alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for hospitalized patients in a Veterans Affairs medical center

BackgroundUnhealthy alcohol use includes the spectrum of alcohol consumption from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders. Routine alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment (RT) are commonly endorsed for improving the identification and management of unhealthy alcohol use in outpatient settings. However, factors which might impact screening, BI, and RT implementation in inpatient settings, particularly if delivered by nurses, are unknown, and must be identified to effectively plan randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nurse-delivered BI. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential barriers and facilitators associated with nurse-delivered alcohol screening, BI and RT for hospitalized patients.MethodsWe conducted audio-recorded focus groups with nurses from three medical-surgical units at a large urban Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Transcripts were analyzed using modified grounded theory techniques to identify key themes regarding anticipated barriers and facilitators to nurse-delivered screening, BI and RT in the inpatient setting.ResultsA total of 33 medical-surgical nurses (97% female, 83% white) participated in one of seven focus groups. Nurses consistently anticipated the following barriers to nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT for hospitalized patients: (1) lack of alcohol-related knowledge and skills; (2) limited interdisciplinary collaboration and communication around alcohol-related care; (3) inadequate alcohol assessment protocols and poor integration with the electronic medical record; (4) concerns about negative patient reaction and limited patient motivation to address alcohol use; (5) questionable compatibility of screening, BI and RT with the acute care paradigm and nursing role; and (6) logistical issues (e.g., lack of time/privacy). Suggested facilitators of nurse-delivered screening, BI, and RT focused on provider- and system-level factors related to: (1) improved provider knowledge, skills, communication, and collaboration; (2) expanded processes of care and nursing roles; and (3) enhanced electronic medical record features.ConclusionsRCTs of nurse-delivered alcohol BI for hospitalized patients should include consideration of the following elements: comprehensive provider education on alcohol screening, BI and RT; record-keeping systems which efficiently document and plan alcohol-related care; a hybrid model of implementation featuring active roles for interdisciplinary generalists and specialists; and ongoing partnerships to facilitate generation of additional evidence for BI efficacy in hospitalized patients.

Pain and its treatment in older nursing home hospice/palliative care residents.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of pain, describe its treatment, and determine factors associated with any pain in older residents assigned to a hospice specialty unit bed or receiving services from a hospice/palliative care/end-of-life special program in US nursing homes. DESIGN Cross-sectional study of data from the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. SETTING The setting was 1174 US nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS Participants were 303 sampled patients, 65 years or older, representing 33,413 individuals receiving hospice/palliative care. MEASUREMENTS Facility staff was asked if, in the past 7 days, the resident had reported or shown evidence of pain. Medication use data were derived from medication administration records. Information about demographics and health status was derived from Minimum Data Set records. RESULTS Cancer was the primary diagnosis in only 11.4% of residents. Overall 36.6% had any pain in the previous week. Among those with any pain, 86.4% received some analgesic; specifically, 65.5% received opioids, whereas 31.7% received acetaminophen. Those with any pain compared with those without pain had shorter lengths of stay in hospice/palliative care (mean 123 days versus 161 days, P < .01), were more likely to be incontinent of bowel (76.2%, versus 60.3%, P < 0.01) and bladder (84.5% versus 71.8%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Pain symptoms were present in more than one third of older nursing home hospice/palliative care residents despite the use of opioids in two thirds of those who had reported or shown evidence of any pain. Additional future studies are needed to improve the management of pain in older residents receiving hospice/palliative care in US nursing homes.