Factors Affecting Physicians' Intentions to Communicate Personalized Prognostic Information to Cancer Patients at the End of Life: An Experimental Vignette Study

"Postponing it Any Later Would not be so Great": A Cognitive Interview Study of How Physicians Decide to Initiate Goals of Care Discussions in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care.

OBJECTIVE

This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes.

RESULTS

6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level.

CONCLUSION

Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed.

Communication preferences and perceptions of cancer patient during their first medical oncology appointment

BACKGROUND

The first medical oncology appointment serves as a platform for patients to comprehend their diagnosis and prognostic implications of cancer. This study aimed to determine patients' communication preferences during their first medical oncology appointment and to assess the disparities between patients' preferences and perceptions.

METHODS

A total of 169 cancer patients participated by completing the Communication in First Medical Oncology Appointment Questionnaire (C-FAQ), a two-section questionnaire designed to assess patients' preferences and perceptions regarding Content (information provided and its extent), Facilitation (timing and location of information delivery), and Support (emotional support) during their first medical oncology appointment. A comparative analysis was conducted to assess the variations between preferences and perceptions.

RESULTS

Content emerged as the most significant dimension compared to Facilitation and Support. The physician's knowledge, honesty, and ability to provide clear information were considered the most important attributes. Patients evaluated most of their preferences as "very important". Patients' perception of the communication dimensions present during their appointment was below preferences for 11 items, indicating significant discrepancies in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients highly valued their preferences concerning Content, Facilitation, and Support dimensions of communication. However, patient preferences were more prominently oriented towards the Content dimension. The discrepancies between preferences and perceptions should be viewed as an opportunity for enhancing communication skills through training.

Evaluating Physician Emotion Regulation in Serious Illness Conversations Using Multimodal Assessment

CONTEXT

Emotion regulation by the physician can influence the effectiveness of serious illness conversations. The feasibility of multimodal assessment of emotion regulation during these conversations is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and assess an experimental framework for evaluating physician emotion regulation during serious illness conversations.

METHODS

We developed and then assessed a multimodal assessment framework for physician emotion regulation using a cross-sectional, pilot study on physicians trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a simulated, telehealth encounter. Development of the assessment framework included a literature review and subject matter expert consultations. Our predefined feasibility endpoints included: an enrollment rate of ≥60% of approached physicians, >90% completion rate of survey items, and <20% missing data from wearable heart rate sensors. To describe physician emotion regulation, we performed a thematic analysis of the conversation, its documentation, and physician interviews.

RESULTS

Out of 12 physicians approached, 11 (92%) SICG-trained physicians enrolled in the study: five medical oncology and six palliative care physicians. All 11 completed the survey (100% completion rate). Two sensors (chest band, wrist sensor) had <20% missing data during study tasks. The forearm sensor had >20% missing data. The thematic analysis found that physicians': 1) overarching goal was to move beyond prognosis to reasonable hope; 2) tactically focused on establishing a trusting, supportive relationship; and 3) possessed incomplete awareness of their emotion regulation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Our novel, multimodal assessment of physician emotion regulation was feasible in a simulated SICG encounter. Physicians exhibited an incomplete understanding of their emotion regulation strategies.

Use of Machine Learning and Lay Care Coaches to Increase Advance Care Planning Conversations for Patients With Metastatic Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We aimed to improve ACP using a computer model to select high-risk patients, with shorter predicted survival, for conversations with providers and lay care coaches. Outcomes included ACP documentation frequency and end-of-life quality measures.

METHODS

In this study of a quality improvement initiative, providers in four medical oncology clinics received Serious Illness Care Program training. Two clinics (thoracic/genitourinary) participated in an intervention, and two (cutaneous/sarcoma) served as controls. ACP conversations were documented in a centralized form in the electronic medical record. In the intervention, providers and care coaches received weekly e-mails highlighting upcoming clinic patients with < 2 year computer-predicted survival and no prior prognosis documentation. Care coaches contacted these patients for an ACP conversation (excluding prognosis). Providers were asked to discuss and document prognosis.

RESULTS

In the four clinics, 4,968 clinic visits by 1,251 patients met inclusion criteria (metastatic cancer with no prognosis previously documented). In their first visit, 28% of patients were high-risk (< 2 year predicted survival). Preintervention, 3% of both intervention and control clinic patients had ACP documentation during a visit. By intervention end (February 2021), 35% of intervention clinic patients had ACP documentation compared with 3% of control clinic patients. Providers' prognosis documentation rate also increased in intervention clinics after the intervention (2%-27% in intervention clinics, P < .0001; 0%-1% in control clinics). End-of-life care intensity was similar in intervention versus control clinics, but patients with ≥ 1 provider ACP edit met fewer high-intensity care measures (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Combining a computer prognosis model with care coaches increased ACP documentation.

Reliability of Uncertainty Tolerance Scales Implemented Among Physicians and Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is a construct describing individuals' perceptions of, and responses to, uncertainty across their cognition, emotion, and behavior. Various UT scales have been designed for physician and medical student populations. However, links between UT and other variables (e.g., training stages) are inconsistent, raising concerns about scale reliability and validity. As reliability is a precondition for validity, a necessary first step in assessing UT scales' efficacy is evaluating their reliability. Accordingly, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the reliability of UT scales designed for, and implemented among, physician and medical student populations.

METHOD

In 2020, the authors searched 4 electronic databases alongside a citation search of previously identified UT scales. They included English-language, peer-reviewed studies that implemented UT scales in physician and/or medical student populations and reported reliability evidence. A meta-analysis of studies' Cronbach's alphas evaluated aggregated internal consistency across studies; subgroup analyses evaluated UT scales by named scale, population, and item characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4,124 records screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting 75 Cronbach's alphas. Four UT scales appeared in at least 3 included studies: Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 (PRU1990) and 1995 (PRU1995) versions, Tolerance for Ambiguity scale (TFA), and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale (TAMSAD). The scores from these scales ranged in reliability from very good (PRU1990: 0.832, PRU1995: 0.818) to respectable (TFA: 0.761, TAMSAD: 0.711). Aggregated internal consistency was significantly higher ( P < .001) among physicians (0.797) than medical students (0.711).

CONCLUSIONS

UT scales generally demonstrated respectable internal consistency when administered among physicians and medical students, yet the reliability among medical students was significantly lower. The authors caution against using UT scores for decision-making purposes (e.g., applicant selection, program evaluation), especially among medical student populations. Future research should explore the reasons underlying these observed population differences.

Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors

Importance

To date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown.

Objective

To compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days.

Exposures

Three-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers.

Results

A total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.

'I Don't Have a Crystal Ball' - Why Do Doctors Tend to Avoid Prognostication?

Uncertainty, fear to harm the patient, discomfort handling the discussion and lack of time are the most cited barriers to prognostic disclosure. Physicians can be reassured that patients desire the truth about prognosis and can manage the discussion without harm, including the uncertainty of the information, if approached in a sensitive manner. Conversational guides could provide support in preparing such difficult conversations. Communicating 'with realism and hope' is possible, and anxiety is normal for both patients and clinicians during prognostic disclosure. As a clinician pointed out: 'I had asked a mentor once if it ever got easier. - No. But you get better at it.'

Conflicting Goals Influence Physicians' Expressed Beliefs to Patients and Colleagues

BACKGROUND

Physicians who communicate their prognostic beliefs to patients must balance candor against other competing goals, such as preserving hope, acknowledging the uncertainty of medicine, or motivating patients to follow their treatment regimes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore possible differences between the beliefs physicians report as their own and those they express to patients and colleagues.

DESIGN

An online panel of 398 specialists in internal medicine who completed their medical degrees and practiced in the United States provided their estimated diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessments for a randomly assigned case. In addition, they reported the diagnostic and prognostic assessments they would report to patients and colleagues more generally. Physicians answered questions about how and why their own beliefs differed from their expressed beliefs to patients and colleagues in the specific case and more generally in their practice.

RESULTS

When discussing beliefs about prognoses to patients and colleagues, most physicians expressed beliefs that differed from their own beliefs. Physicians were more likely to express greater optimism when talking to patients about poor prognoses than good prognoses. Physicians were also more likely to express greater uncertainty to patients when prognoses were poor than when they were good. The most common reasons for the differences between physicians' own beliefs and their expressed beliefs were preserving hope and acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

CONCLUSION

To balance candor against other communicative goals, physicians tended to express beliefs that were more optimistic and contained greater uncertainty than the beliefs they said were their own, especially in discussions with patients whose prognoses were poor.

Is phase angle a valuable prognostic tool in cancer patients' survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The phase angle (PA), expressed via bioelectrical impedance, is an indicator of cell membrane health and integrity, hydration, and nutritional status, and may have further application as a prognostic marker in cancer survival. However, the associations between PA and cancer survival are inconsistent and unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the relationship between PA and survival among adult patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of observational studies up to November 2020 was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science. The critical appraisal of the eligible studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 11.2 software. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies covering 2625 participants were included in this study. There was a positive and significant correlation between PA and cancer survival (Fisher's Z: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.21-0.40; P < 0.001; I² = 0.0%). Also, there was a significant prognostic role for PA on patients' survival (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81; P < 0.001; I² = 0.0%). In other words, patients with low values of PA were 23% less likely to survive than patients with high values of PA.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that predicting survival in advanced cancer patients remains a challenge, the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that phase angle may be an important prognostic factor of survival in this population.

Impact of individualized intervention on the psychological status of patients with localized small cell lung cancer complicated with pleural effusion

To explore the intervention effects of individualized measures on the psychological status of patients with localized small cell lung cancer complicated with pleural effusion (LSCLC-PE). A total of 79 LSCLC patients were selected for comparing the source of psychological control and psychological distress between the patients with combined (group LSCLC-PE, n = 38) and non-combined pleural effusion (group LSCLC, n = 41). LSCLC-PE patients were randomly sub-divided into the control group (CON, for conventional intervention) and the observation group (OBS, for individualized intervention) for evaluating the intervention effects between these two subgroups using the SCL-90 scale. The PHLC score, psychological pain score, and sources of psychological pain (proportion of dyspnea, etc.) in group LSCLC-PE were higher than group LSCLC, but the IHLC and CHLC scores were lower; after intervention, the somatization, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and total average score in subgroup OBS were statistically lower than subgroup CON. LSCLC-PE patients have poor psychological status, and intervention can improve their psychological status.

Emotions in the room: common emotional reactions to discussions of poor prognosis and tools to address them

Introduction: Advanced cancer patients often want prognostic information, and discussions of prognosis have been shown to enhance patient understanding of their illness. Such discussions can lead to high-quality, value-consistent care at the end of life, yet they are also often emotionally challenging. Despite how common and normal it is for patients to experience transient emotional distress when receiving 'bad news' about prognosis, emotional responses have been under-addressed in existing literature on prognostic discussions. Areas covered: Drawing upon psychology research, principles of skilled clinical communication, and published approaches to discussions of serious illness, we summarize patients' common emotional reactions and coping strategies. We then provide suggestions for how to respond to them in clinic. Expert opinion: Ultimately, effective management of emotional reactions to bad news may lead to earlier, more frequent, and more transparent discussions of prognosis, thus promoting cancer patients' understanding of, and adjustment to, their illness and improving the quality of their end-of-life care.

Advanced cancer patients' understanding of prognostic information: Applying insights from psychological research

Purpose

Informed medical decision‐making at the end of life often requires engaging in highly emotional, potentially upsetting discussions about prognosis, while ensuring that patients grasp its personal meaning. Behavioral science offers insights into ways to promote prognostic understanding among patients with advanced cancer.

Summary

In this literature review, we synthesize complementary findings from basic behavioral science and applied clinical research, which suggest that psychological factors can significantly influence both patients’ clinical interactions and their prognostic understanding. For example, stress and emotion can affect cognition, which may shape how patients process complex medical information. Additionally, clinicians may be less likely to share prognostic information with distressed patients who, in turn, may be hesitant to ask about their prognosis for fear of the answer. Although traditional approaches for increasing advanced cancer patients’ understanding focus on improving information delivery, these efforts may not be sufficient without corresponding interventions that assist patients in managing distress.

Conclusions

Psychological barriers may limit opportunities for patients to fully understand their prognosis and to receive high quality of end‐of‐life care that is linked with an accurate understanding of their disease and treatment options. Failure to attend to patients’ emotional distress may undermine efforts to improve medical communication. This underscores the importance of increased attention to the psychological factors that impede patients’ comprehension of material shared in cancer clinic visits, in order to inform interventions that address patient distress both before and after receiving “bad news." Integrating findings from psychological research into prognostic discussions may not only improve advanced cancer patients’ mental health, but may also promote their ability to make informed, value‐consistent medical decisions.

Prognostication in advanced cancer: update and directions for future research

The objective of this review is to provide an update on prognostication in patients with advanced cancer and to discuss future directions for research in this field. Accurate prognostication of survival for patients with advanced cancer is vital, as patient life expectancy informs many important personal and clinical decisions. The most common prognostic approach is clinician prediction of survival (CPS) using temporal, surprise, or probabilistic questions. The surprise and probabilistic questions may be more accurate than the temporal approach, partly by limiting the time frame of prediction. Prognostic models such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), or Prognosis in Palliative Care Study (PiPS) predictor model may augment CPS. However, care must be taken to select the appropriate tool since prognostic accuracy varies by patient population, setting, and time frame of prediction. In addition to life expectancy, patients and caregivers often desire that expected treatment outcomes and bodily changes be communicated to them in a sensible manner at an appropriate time. We propose the following 10 major themes for future prognostication research: (1) enhancing prognostic accuracy, (2) improving reliability and reproducibility of prognosis, (3) identifying the appropriate prognostic tool for a given setting, (4) predicting the risks and benefits of cancer therapies, (5) predicting survival for pediatric populations, (6) translating prognostic knowledge into practice, (7) understanding the impact of prognostic uncertainty, (8) communicating prognosis, (9) clarifying outcomes associated with delivery of prognostic information, and (10) standardizing prognostic terminology.

The complexity of physicians' understanding and management of prognostic uncertainty in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy

OBJECTIVE

Prognosis of Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) remains challenging and uncertain. This paper investigates how physicians understand and address the ethical challenges of prognostic uncertainty in the case of neonatal HIE, contextualized within the social science literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Canadian neurologists and neonatologists, addressing their perspectives and clinical experiences concerning neonatal HIE prognostication. Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants unanimously recognized uncertainty in their prognostication. They identified several sources contributing to uncertainty in HIE prognostication, including etiology and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, statistical limitations, variable clinical data, the dynamic process of neurodevelopment, or the impact of hypothermia treatment. Unlike in some other literature, some physicians in this study talked about ways to render uncertainty explicit rather than hide it.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study support the call for recognition of the ubiquitous uncertainty surrounding this act in medical education and training.

How long do I have? Observational study on communication about life expectancy with advanced cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine how communication about life expectancy is initiated in consultations about palliative chemotherapy, and what prognostic information is presented.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer (n=41) with a median life expectancy <1year and oncologists (n=6) and oncologists-in-training (n=7) meeting with them in consultations (n=62) to discuss palliative chemotherapy were included. Verbatim transcripts of audio-recorded consultations were analyzed using MAXqda10.

RESULTS

Life expectancy was addressed in 19 of 62 of the consultations. In all cases, patients took the initiative, most often through direct questions. Estimates were provided in 12 consultations in various formats: the likelihood of experiencing a significant event, point estimates or general time scales of "months to years", often with an emphasis on the "years". The indeterminacy of estimates was consistently stressed. Also their potential inadequacy was regularly addressed, often by describing beneficial prognostic predictors for the specific patient. Oncologists did not address the reliability or precision of estimates.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists did not initiate talk about life expectancy, they used different formats, emphasized the positive and stressed unpredictability, yet not ambiguity of estimates.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Prognostic communication should be part of the medical curriculum. Further research should address the effect of different formats of information provision.