Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened interest in how physician mental health can be protected and optimised, but uncertainty and misinformation remain about some key issues. In this Review, we discuss the current literature, which shows that despite what might be inferred during training, physicians are not immune to mental illness, with between a quarter and a third reporting increased symptoms of mental ill health. Physicians, particularly female physicians, are at an increased risk of suicide. An emerging consensus exists that some aspects of physician training, working conditions, and organisational support are unacceptable. Changes in medical training and health systems, and the additional strain of working through a pandemic, might have amplified these problems. A new evidence-informed framework for how individual and organisational interventions can be used in an integrated manner in medical schools, in health-care settings, and by professional colleagues is proposed. New initiatives are required at each of these levels, with an urgent need for organisational-level interventions, to better protect the mental health and wellbeing of physicians.

Understanding decisional involvement and information preferences in patients with hematologic malignancies may help to optimize physician-patient communication about treatment decisions and align the decision-making processes with patients' preferences. We described and examined factors associated with preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies for decisional involvement, information sources, and presentation of information. In a multicenter observational study, we recruited 216 patients with hematologic malignancies of any stage from September 2003 to June 2007. Patients were asked about their decisional involvement preferences (Control Preferences Scale), information sources (including most useful source of information), and preferences for their oncologists' presentation of treatment success information. We used multivariate logistic regressions to identify factors associated with decisional involvement preferences and usefulness of information sources (physicians vs nonphysicians). Patient-directed, shared, and physician-directed approaches were preferred in 34%, 38%, and 28% of patients, respectively. Physicians and computer/Internet were the most common information sources; 42% perceived physicians as the most useful source. On multivariate analysis, patients with less than a college education (vs postgraduate education) were less likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-1.00), whereas patients with acute leukemia (vs other blood cancers) were more likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (AOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.07-5.80). In terms of communicating treatment success rates, 70% preferred ≥1 method(s), and 88% preferred presentation in percentages. Our study suggests that decisional involvement and information preferences vary and should be assessed explicitly as part of each decision-making encounter.

Understanding decisional involvement and information preferences in patients with hematologic malignancies may help to optimize physician-patient communication about treatment decisions and align the decision-making processes with patients’ preferences. We described and examined factors associated with preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies for decisional involvement, information sources, and presentation of information. In a multicenter observational study, we recruited 216 patients with hematologic malignancies of any stage from September 2003 to June 2007. Patients were asked about their decisional involvement preferences (Control Preferences Scale), information sources (including most useful source of information), and preferences for their oncologists’ presentation of treatment success information. We used multivariate logistic regressions to identify factors associated with decisional involvement preferences and usefulness of information sources (physicians vs nonphysicians). Patient-directed, shared, and physician-directed approaches were preferred in 34%, 38%, and 28% of patients, respectively. Physicians and computer/Internet were the most common information sources; 42% perceived physicians as the most useful source. On multivariate analysis, patients with less than a college education (vs postgraduate education) were less likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-1.00), whereas patients with acute leukemia (vs other blood cancers) were more likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (AOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.07-5.80). In terms of communicating treatment success rates, 70% preferred ≥1 method(s), and 88% preferred presentation in percentages. Our study suggests that decisional involvement and information preferences vary and should be assessed explicitly as part of each decision-making encounter.

IMPORTANCE: Older patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Oncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns. RESULTS: A total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about aging-related concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group’s visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Including GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443

Patients highly value being listened to, taken seriously, heard, and understood; indeed, listening to patients is essential to alleviate suffering. Yet listening as a clinical skill has been virtually ignored in the training of physicians. In this paper, we synthesize literature related to listening in medicine and explore the internal and external challenges and complexity of listening – including the need to listen with a diagnostic as well as a relational ear to take in physical symptoms, emotions, and contexts – often in chaotic and time-pressured environments. We suggest physicians focus on the development of “deep listening” skills, involving cultivating curiosity, openness, reflective self-questioning, and epistemic reciprocity; we also suggest how to ensure patients know they are being listened to.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627

IMPORTANCE: Patients with advanced cancer often report expectations for survival that differ from their oncologists’ expectations. Whether patients know that their survival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown. This distinction is important because knowingly expressing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing that their understanding differs from that of their treating physician is a potential marker of inadequate communication. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence, distribution, and proportion of prognostic discordance that is due to patients’ knowingly vs unknowingly expressing an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted at academic and community oncology practices in Rochester, New York, and Sacramento, California. The sample comprises 236 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an intervention to improve clinical communication. Participants were enrolled from August 2012 to June 2014 and followed up until October 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We ascertained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability. For discordant pairs, we determined whether patients knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival. RESULTS: Among the 236 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-75%) were discordant. Discordance was substantially more common among nonwhite patients compared with white patients (95% [95% CI, 86%-100%] vs 65% [95% CI, 58%-73%], respectively; P = .03). Among 161 discordant patients, 144 (89%) did not know that their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was common and patients rarely knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

IMPORTANCE: Low-value diagnostic tests have been included on primary care specialty societies’ “Choosing Wisely” Top Five lists. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a standardized patient (SP)-based intervention designed to enhance primary care physician (PCP) patient-centeredness and skill in handling patient requests for low-value diagnostic tests. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial of 61 general internal medicine or family medicine residents at 2 residency-affiliated primary care clinics at an academic medical center in California. INTERVENTIONS: Two simulated visits with SP instructors portraying patients requesting inappropriate spinal magnetic resonance imaging for low back pain or screening dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The SP instructors provided personalized feedback to residents regarding use of 6 patient-centered techniques to address patient concerns without ordering low-value tests. Control group physicians received SP visits without feedback and were emailed relevant clinical guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was whether resident PCPs ordered SP-requested low-value tests during up to 3 unannounced SP clinic visits over 3 to 12 months follow-up, with patients requesting spinal magnetic resonance imaging, screening dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, or headache neuroimaging. Secondary outcomes included PCP patient-centeredness and use of targeted techniques (both coded from visit audiorecordings), and SP satisfaction with the visit (0-10 scale). RESULTS: Of 61 randomized resident PCPs (31 control group and 30 intervention group), 59 had encounters with 155 SPs during follow-up. Compared with control PCPs, intervention PCPs had similar patient-centeredness (Measure of Patient-Centered Communication, 43.9 [95% CI, 42.0 to 45.7] vs 43.7 [95% CI, 41.8 to 45.6], adjusted mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −2.9 to 2.5]; P = .90) and used a similar number of targeted techniques (5.4 [95% CI, 4.9 to 5.8] vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.9 to 5.8] on a 0-9 scale, adjusted mean difference, 0 [95% CI, −0.7 to 0.6]; P = .96). Residents ordered low-value tests in 41 SP encounters (26.5% [95% CI, 19.7%-34.1%]) with no significant difference in the odds of test ordering in intervention PCPs relative to control group PCPs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.49-2.32]). Rates of test ordering among intervention and control PCPs were similar for all 3 SP cases. The SPs rated visit satisfaction higher among intervention than control PCPs (8.5 [95% CI, 8.1-8.8] vs 7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2], adjusted mean difference, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.1-1.1]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An SP-based intervention did not improve the patient-centeredness of SP encounters, use of targeted interactional techniques, or rates of low-value test ordering, although SPs were more satisfied with intervention than control residents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01808664

Personality is relatively stable in adulthood but could change in response to life transitions, such as caring for a spouse with a terminal illness. Using a case–control design, spousal caregivers (n= 31) of patients with terminal lung cancer completed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) twice, 1.5 years apart, before and after the patient’s death. A demographically matched sample of community controls (n= 93) completed the NEO-FFI on a similar time frame. Based on research and theory, we hypothesized that bereaved caregivers would experience greater changes than controls in interpersonal facets of extraversion (sociability), agreeableness (prosocial and nonantagonistic), and conscientiousness (dependability). Consistent with hypotheses, bereaved caregivers experienced an increase in interpersonal orientation, becoming more sociable, prosocial, and dependable (Cohen’s d= .48–.67), though there were no changes in nonantagonism. Changes were not observed in controls (ds = .11). These initial findings underscore the need for more research on the effect of life transitions on personality.

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is associated with more appropriate treatment of depression in primary care. Aside from patient presentation, little is known about other influences on PCC. We investigated whether PCC is influenced by personality dispositions of primary care providers, independent of patient presentation.

We sought to ascertain whether patients’ requests for antidepressants affect visit duration or history taking by primary care physicians (PCPs) for patients with depressive symptoms and a coexisting musculoskeletal disorder and to determine whether more thorough history taking is associated with diagnostic accuracy or with provision of minimally acceptable initial care for major depression.

Patient satisfaction surveys can be informative, but bias and poor response rates may limit their utility as stable measures of physician performance. Using unannounced standardized patients (SPs) may overcome some of these limitations because their experience and training make them able judges of physician behavior.

To understand how physicians communicate may contribute to the mistrust and poor clinical outcomes observed in patients who present with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).

Patients’ trust in their health care providers may affect their satisfaction and health outcomes. Despite the potential importance of trust, there are few studies of its correlates using objective measures of physician behavior during encounters with patients.