What and how are students taught about communicating risks to patients? Analysis of a medical curriculum

What do the teachers want? A targeted needs assessment survey for prospective didactic training of psychiatry medical educators

Objectives

Physicians and psychologists at psychiatric university hospitals are assigned teaching tasks from the first day of work without necessarily having the prerequisite training in teaching methods. This exploratory survey provides a needs-based analysis for the prospective didactic training of physicians and psychologists at psychiatric hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed at medical schools via email in German-speaking countries in Europe. All physicians involved in teaching medical students at psychiatry faculties were eligible to participate in the survey. Participants were further requested to recruit eligible participants (snowball sampling). Responses were analyzed descriptively, and differences between groups were calculated using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests (p<.05).

Results

Overall, 97 respondents (male=55, female=42; mean age= 40.6) from 19 medical schools completed the survey. The respondents consisted of 43 residents, 39 specialists, 6 chief physicians and 9 psychologists. Of the respondents, 97.6% rated didactic competence as either highly relevant or rather relevant for teaching medical students. The highest overall interest was shown for bedside teaching (mode=4; IQR: 2-4) and error culture (mode=3; IQR: 2-4). Respondents expressed the highest training needs for topics regarding presentation and communication (mode=3; IQR: 2-3). Resident physicians were significantly more interested in bedside teaching (U=362.0, p=0.004) and roleplay (U=425.0; p=0.036) than specialist physicians, who were more interested in examination didactics (U=415.0; p=0.022). Chief physicians displayed significantly deeper interest in group dynamics (U=51; p=0.023) than specialist physicians. In-person training was preferred by a majority of respondents, and 27.4% preferred online/web-based training.

Conclusions

The majority of physicians and psychologists at psychiatric university hospitals considered professional development for faculty to be helpful for teaching medical students. Bedside teaching and error culture management were the most desired teaching topics for training medical teachers. Tailored educational interventions are recommended, with target-oriented priorities for different hierarchical levels.

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC.

RESULTS

382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length.

CONCLUSION

Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Interpersonal (mis)perceptions and (mis)predictions in patient-clinician interactions

Patient-clinician interactions require an interpersonal exchange of information, preferences, expectations, values, and priorities. Given the brief interaction patients and clinicians are allowed, many barriers to effective communication exist, resulting in patients and clinicians leaving an interaction with discordant perceptions of what has occurred and what is to come. We review literature on concordance and lack thereof, between patient and clinician perceptions, reasons why discordance may occur, how to decrease discordance as well as how dischordance impacts patient care and outcomes.

How good are medical students at communicating risk? An implementation study at three German medical schools

OBJECTIVE

To assess the objective and subjective risk communication skills of medical students in three universities in Germany METHODS: We developed a risk communication skills Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station and implemented it in three medical schools in Germany. 596 students contributed data to a risk communication checklist and a risk communication self-assessment. Multiple linear regression models were used to identify factors associated with the risk communication OSCE performance.

RESULTS

Participants in our study achieved on average 73.5% of the total risk communication skills score, which did not differ between locations (F(2-595) = 1.96; p = 0.142). The mean objective performance of students who assessed their skills as poor was significantly worse than the performance of students who assessed their skills as good (t(520) = -5.01, p < 0.001). The risk communication skills score was associated with native language but not with gender nor General Point Average (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students demonstrated acceptable risk communication skills scores and were able to self-assess their performance. However, selected communication techniques should be re-emphasised in the undergraduate medical curriculum.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our research identified shortcomings in particular subgroups that can be addressed through tailored curriculum interventions.

Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and initial evaluation of a brief e-learning course as a means of teaching shared decision making and risk communication skills to clinicians of all specialties.

DESIGN

Comparison pre-course and post-course of scores in subjective confidence and objective knowledge about shared decision making and risk communication.

SETTING

Online and open to all specialties and levels of clinical experience, including students.

PARTICIPANTS

The course is freely available online and all who started the course from September 2018 to May 2020 were invited to participate in the evaluation study.

INTERVENTION

The self-guided e-learning course is made up of four modules and takes approximately 2 hours to complete. It is hosted on the website of the Winton Centre for Risk Communication and the UK's National Health Service e-learning platform.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-course and post-course confidence in performing shared decision making (as measured by a 10-item scale adapted from the OPTION tool; total score range 10-50), and objective knowledge about basic principles of shared decision making and risk communication, as measured by performance on four knowledge questions and three calculations. At course commencement, a single item from the Berlin Numeracy Test, and the eight-item Subjective Numeracy Test were also asked.

RESULTS

Of 366 unique participants who consented and commenced the course, 210 completed all modules and the final post-course test. Participants' mean age was 38.1 years, 69% were in current clinical practice and had a mean of 10.5 years of clinical practice. Numeracy was relatively low, with 50.7% correctly answering the Berlin Numeracy Test item pre-course. Participants who completed the course showed a significant improvement in their confidence by a mean summed score of 3.7 units (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6, p<0.0001) from a mean pre-course of 37.4 (SD 6.1) to post-course of 41.1 (SD 6.9). There was an increase in the proportion of correct answers for most knowledge questions (p<0.0001, p=0.013 for two directly compared), although no improvement in most skill questions that involved numbers (eg, calculating relative risks). Participants with higher numeracy appeared to show higher skill and confidence on most questions.

CONCLUSIONS

This online, free e-learning course was successful in increasing participants' confidence in, and some aspects of knowledge about, shared decision making and risk communication. It also highlighted the need for improvements in clinicians' numerical skills as a vital part of training. We suggest that the course is used in combination with practical face-to-face experience and more intensive numerical skills training.