Valerie Jenkins

Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres

As part of a multi-centred study evaluating a communication skills training model for clinicians, we collected information preferences using an adaptation of Cassileths Information Needs questionnaire from a heterogeneous sample of 2331 patients. Results showed that 87% (2027) wanted all possible information, both good and bad news and 98% (2203) preferred to know whether or not their illness was cancer. Cross tabulation of responses revealed no significant differences in information preferences for tumour site or treatment aims but did show an effect of age and sex. The few 58/440 (13.2%) patients who stated that in general they preferred to leave disclosure of details up to the doctor, tended to be older patients more than 70 years of age (chi square = 26.01, df = 2, P< 0.0001), although paradoxically they still wanted to know certain specific details. In comparison to men women preferred to know the specific name of the illness (chi square = 4.9, df = 1, P< 0.02) and what were all the possible treatments (chi square = 8.26, df = 1, P< 0.004). The results from this very large sample provide conclusive evidence that the vast majority of patients with cancer want a great deal of specific information concerning their illness and treatment. Failure to disclose such information on the grounds that significant numbers of patients prefer not to know is untenable.

Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine

In every medical specialty bad, sad, and difficult information must be given to patients and their families. An insensitive approach increases the distress of recipients of bad news, may exert a lasting impact on their ability to adapt and adjust, and can lead to anger and an increased risk of litigation. Many doctors also find these interactions stressful, and in the absence of much effective training they may adopt inappropriate ways of delivering bad news and coping with the emotional fall-out. Recognition of these difficulties has led to many initiatives, ranging from increased communication skills training to the development of guidelines and protocols. We review some of the research on the impact that giving sad, bad, and difficult news has on doctors and patients, and assess whether interventions are helping. We focus mainly on difficulties encountered involving parents in an obstetric or paediatric setting, people in acute trauma situations such as accident and emergency departments, and patients with cancer.

Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer

Psychiatric morbidity in patients with cancer is high and without appropriate treatment unremitting. We assessed the ability of 143 doctors to establish the psychological status of 2297 patients during outpatient consultations in 34 cancer centres and hospitals in the UK. Prior to seeing the doctor, consenting patients completed a short self-report questionnaire (GHQ12), designed for the psychological screening of large populations. At the end of the consultation, doctors completed visual analogue scales rating patients’ distress. 837/2297 (36.4%) patients had GHQ scores suggestive of psychiatric morbidity. The doctors’ sensitivity (true positive rate) was 28.87% (SD 25.29), specificity (true negative rate) 84.79% (SD 17.44). The misclassification rate was 34.7% (SD 13.79) meaning that for 797 patients the wrong assessment was probably made. These data show that much of the probable psychiatric morbidity experienced by patients with cancer goes unrecognized and therefore untreated. Doctors need communication skills training to elicit problems during consultations. Appropriate referrals to psychological services are necessary when patients requiring help are identified and ought to be an integral part of cancer care.

Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care

Communication within oncology is a core clinical skill but one in which few oncologists or specialist cancer nurses have received much formal training. Inadequate communication may cause much distress for patients and their families, who often want considerably more information than is usually provided. Many patients leave consultations unsure about the diagnosis and prognosis, confused about the meaning of--and need for--further diagnostic tests, unclear about the management plan and uncertain about the true therapeutic intent of treatment. Additionally, communication difficulties may impede the recruitment of patients to clinical trials, delaying the introduction of efficacious new treatments into clinics. Lack of effective communication between specialists and departments can also cause confusion and a loss of confidence amongst the team. Oncologists themselves acknowledge that insufficient training in communication and management skills is a major factor contributing to their own stress, lack of job satisfaction and emotional burnout. Consequently, over the past few years there have been several initiatives aimed at improving basic communication skills training for healthcare professionals in the cancer field. In this paper, some of the issues that influence communication within an oncology setting, and ultimately affect patient care, are discussed.

Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care

Healthcare professionals often censor their information giving to patients in an attempt to protect them from potentially hurtful, sad or bad news. There is a commonly expressed belief that what people do not know does not harm them. Analysis of doctor and nurse/patient interactions reveals that this well-intentioned but misguided assumption about human behaviour is present at all stages of cancer care. Less than honest disclosure is seen from the moment that a patient reports symptoms, to the confirmation of diagnosis, during discussions about the therapeutic benefits of treatment, at relapse and terminal illness. This desire to shield patients from the reality of their situation usually creates even greater difficulties for patients, their relatives and friends and other members of the healthcare team. Although the motivation behind economy with the truth is often well meant, a conspiracy of silence usually results in a heightened state of fear, anxiety and confusion not one of calm and equanimity. Ambiguous or deliberately misleading information may afford short-term benefits while things continue to go well, but denies individuals and their families opportunities to reorganize and adapt their lives towards the attainment of more achievable goals, realistic hopes and aspirations. In this paper, some examples and consequences of accidental, deliberate, if well-meaning, attempts to disguise the truth from patients, taken verbatim from interviews, are given, together with cases of unintentional deception or misunderstandings created by the use of ambiguous language. We also provide evidence from research studies showing that although truth hurts, deceit may well hurt more. ‘I think the best physician is the one who has the providence to tell to the patients according to his knowledge the present situation, what has happened before, and what is going to happen in the future’ (Hippocrates).

Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?

Cancer care can be complex, and given the wide range and numbers of health-care professionals involved, an enormous potential for poor coordination and miscommunication exists. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should improve coordination, communication, and decision making between health-care team members and patients, and hopefully produce more positive outcomes. This review describes the many practical barriers to the successful implementation of MDT working, and shows that despite an increase in the delivery of cancer services via this method, research showing the effectiveness of MDT working is scarce.

A 3-year prospective study of the effects of adjuvant treatments on cognition in women with early stage breast cancer.

The neuropsychological performance of 85 women with early stage breast cancer scheduled for chemotherapy, 43 women scheduled for endocrine therapy and/or radiotherapy and 49 healthy control subjects was assessed at baseline (T1), postchemotherapy (or 6 months) (T2) and at 18 months (T3). Repeated measures analysis found no significant interactions or main effect of group after controlling for age and intelligence. Using a calculation to examine performance at an individual level, reliable decline on multiple tasks was seen in 20% of chemotherapy patients, 26% of nonchemotherapy patients and 18% of controls at T2 (18%, 14 and 11%, respectively, at T3). Patients who had experienced a treatment-induced menopause were more likely to show reliable decline on multiple measures at T2 (OR=2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.823–8.266 P=0.086). Psychological distress, quality of life measures and self-reported cognitive failures did not impact on objective tests of cognitive function, but were significantly associated with each other. The results show that a few women experienced objective measurable change in their concentration and memory following standard adjuvant therapy, but the majority were either unaffected or even improve over time.

Enduring impact of communication skills training: results of a 12-month follow-up

The efficacy of a communication skills training programme was shown through a randomised trial. Oncologists (N=160) from 34 cancer centres were allocated to written feedback plus course; course alone; written feedback alone or control. Each clinician had 6 – 10 interviews with patients videotaped at baseline and 3 months postintervention. Analysis of videotapes revealed improvements in the communication skills of clinicians randomised to training (n=80) compared with others (n=80). A 12-month follow-up assessment is reported here. Robust Poisson conditional analyses of counts of changes in communication behaviours revealed no demonstrable attrition in those who had shown improvement previously, including fewer leading questions, appropriate use of focused and open-ended questions and responses to patient cues. Additional skills, not apparent at 3 months, were now evident; the estimated effect sizes corresponded to 81% fewer interruptions (P=0.001) and increased summarising of information to 38% (P=0.038). However, expressions of empathy (54%, P=0.001) declined. The overall results show that 12 – 15 months postintervention, clinicians had integrated key communication skills into clinical practice and were applying others. This is the first RCT to show an enduring effect of communication skills training with transfer into the clinic.

Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy

This paper reports on the reasons why patients agreed to or declined entry into randomized trials of cancer following discussions conducted by clinicians in both District General and University Hospitals. Two hundred and four patients completed a 16-item questionnaire following the consultation, of these 112 (55%) were women with breast cancer. Overall results showed that 147 (72.1%) patients accepted entry to a randomized clinical trial (RCT). The main reasons nominated for participating in a trial were that ‘others will benefit’ (23.1%) and ‘trust in the doctor’ (21.1%). One of the main reasons for declining trial entry was that patients were ‘worried about randomization’ (19.6%). There was a significantly higher acceptance rate for trials providing active treatment in every arm 98 (80.6%) compared with those trials with a no treatment arm 46 (60.5%), χ2test P = 0.003. The study outlines a number of factors that appear to influence a patient’s decision to accept or decline entry into an RCT of cancer therapy. An important factor is whether or not the trial offers active treatment in all arms of the study. Communication that promotes trust and confidence in the doctor is also a powerful motivating influence.

The effects of hormone therapy on cognition in breast cancer

The use of hormonal therapies for the treatment of breast cancer is common, yet few studies have examined the possible cognitive effects. Several regions of the brain, important in memory and cognition, are rich in oestrogen receptors. As a result, the long-term use of anti-oestrogens may have potential consequences for cognition. This project aims to establish whether significant cognitive deficit exists in women receiving hormone therapy for breast cancer and to develop a cognitive package that is sensitive to the potential effects of oestrogen deficiency on cognition. Cognitive assessments measured a range of memory and attention functions in patient and control groups to identify whether cognitive impairment, if apparent, occurs at a widespread or function specific level. Ninety-four patients from the anastrozole, tamoxifen and combined (ATAC) trial and 35 non-cancer controls were assessed. Groups did not differ significantly in age or estimated full-scale intelligence. The patient group did not differ from controls on measures of working memory, attention and visual memory but was significantly impaired compared to the control group on measures of verbal memory (P=0.026) and processing speed (P=0.032). Cognitive performance in the patient group was not significantly related to length of time on trial or measures of psychological morbidity. As more and more hormonal agents are used in clinical trials of both adjuvant and preventive settings it is of vital importance that any potentially deleterious effects on cognitive function are measured adequately. Preliminary results from this study suggest that anti-oestrogen therapy may cause a specific deficit in verbal memory that corroborates the links between oestrogen levels and verbal memory often reported in studies of the cognitive benefits of hormone replacement therapy.