Article

Breast cancer risk communication: assessment of primary care physicians by standardized patients.

Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 08/2009; 11(10):735-41. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b2e5eb
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess primary care providers' communication about breast cancer risk.
We evaluated 86 primary care providers' communication of risk using unannounced standardized (simulated) patients. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three cases: (1) moderate risk case (n = 25), presenting with a breast lump and mother with postmenopausal breast cancer; (2) high-risk (maternal side) case (n = 28), presenting with concern about breast cancer risk; and (3) high-risk (paternal side) case (n = 33), presenting with an unrelated problem. After the appointment, three qualitative parameters were assessed by standardized patients on a 3-point scale (3 = highest satisfaction, 1 = lowest): whether the physician took adequate time; acknowledged her concerns; and offered reassurance.
Mean satisfaction with physician communication was higher for the moderate risk case (2.92) than for the high-risk paternal case (2.25) or high-risk maternal case (2.42) (P < 0.0001). The score was not influenced by session length, medical specialty, or physician gender.
Physicians more consistently provided a moderate risk standardized patients with reassurance and support compared with the high-risk cases. Primary care physicians may be more unprepared or uneasy addressing the issues raised by more complex scenarios and may benefit from training in the assessment and communication of breast cancer risk.

0 Followers
 · 
103 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The pathology report is a critical document that helps guide the management of patients with cancer. More and more patients read their reports, intending to participate in decisions about their care. However, a substantial subset of patients may lack the ability to comprehend this often technical and complex document. We hypothesized that most literature on pathology reports discusses reports from the perspective of other physicians and not from the perspective of patients. An expert panel of physicians developed a list of search criteria, which we used to identify articles on PubMed®, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently evaluated all articles to identify for detailed review those that met search criteria. We identified the primary audience of the selected papers and the degree to which these papers addressed clarity of communication of pathology reports with patients. Of 801 articles identified in our search, 25 involved the formatting of pathology reports for clarity of communication. Recurrent themes in proposed improvements in reports included: content standardization, variation in terminology, clarity of communication, and quality improvement. No articles discussed patients as their target audience. No study evaluated the health literacy level required of patients to comprehend pathology reports. In summary, there is a scarcity of patient centered approaches to improve pathology reports. The literature on pathology reports does not include patients as a target audience. Limited resources are available to help patients comprehend their reports. Efforts to improve patient-centered communication are desirable to address this overlooked aspect of patient care.
    Human pathology 04/2014; 45(11). DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2014.07.008 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL). We evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback. Four-year cluster randomized controlled trial. Eighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening. Communication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports. PCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months. There were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge. Compared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 02/2014; 29(8). DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-2782-4 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6 %), and fewer (43.8 %) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3 % versus 60.7 %, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3 % versus 21.3 %, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0 % versus 6.6 %, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0 % versus 1.6 %, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3 % versus 34.4 %, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, “What would you do?” (33.3 % versus 54.1 %, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2014; 30(3). DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-3113-5 · 3.42 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from