Communication Improvement Feedback for Cancer Care

Overseen By Natalie Ashley, MHA

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Duke University

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

5000 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

The goal-concordant care lab will develop and test strategies to optimize communication in advanced serious illness.

Do I need to stop taking my current medications for this trial?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Feedback for improving communication in cancer care?

Research indicates that providing feedback from patient-reported outcomes to doctors and patients can improve care processes and patient outcomes in cancer treatment. Regular feedback helps doctors better understand and address patients' issues during treatment, enhancing communication and care quality. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Is the Communication Improvement Feedback for Cancer Care treatment safe for humans?

The research articles provided do not contain specific safety data about the Communication Improvement Feedback for Cancer Care treatment. They focus on general patient safety in oncology and adverse event reporting, but not on this specific treatment. ^{6 7 8 9 10}

How does the Communication Improvement Feedback treatment differ from other cancer care treatments?

This treatment is unique because it focuses on improving communication between healthcare providers and cancer patients, rather than directly targeting the cancer itself. It aims to enhance the quality of care by providing regular feedback to clinicians, which is not a standard approach in traditional cancer treatments. ^{4 11 12 13 14}

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is open to patients within the Duke Health system who are dealing with advanced serious illnesses such as cancer, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or dementia. There are no specific exclusion criteria mentioned, so it appears to be quite inclusive.

Inclusion Criteria

Duke Health patient

Exclusion Criteria

N/A

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Intervention

Feedback to provider regarding frequency and quality of communication

6 months

Control

Usual care without additional interventions

6 months

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for frequency and timing of goals of care communication

2 years

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Feedback

Trial Overview The study focuses on improving communication strategies for patients with serious health conditions. It aims to develop and test methods that ensure patient care aligns with their goals and values.

Participant Groups

Group I: Intervention Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Feedback to provider regarding frequency and quality of communication

Group II: Control Active Control 1 Intervention

Usual care

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Duke University

Lead Sponsor

Trials

2,495

Recruited

5,912,000+

Findings from Research

Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) feedback interventions in oncology showed a positive impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-healthcare provider communication, with a moderate effect size based on a meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 7071 cancer patients.

The intervention also demonstrated a significant improvement in 1-year overall survival rates, suggesting that providing feedback can enhance care processes and outcomes for cancer patients, although the findings are limited by a high risk of bias in the studies reviewed.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effectiveness of routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements for cancer care improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lu, SC., Porter, I., Valderas, JM., et al.[2023]

A new screening tool was developed to identify adverse events (AEs) in cancer care, consisting of 76 specific triggers that can help detect potential safety issues during treatment.

This tool, which categorizes triggers related to general care, vital signs, medications, and laboratory tests, has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care in oncology, although further testing is needed to validate its effectiveness.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records. Lipitz-Snyderman, A., Weingart, SN., Anderson, C., et al.[2021]

A new tool for clinicians in inpatient oncology units has been developed to prevent adverse events and enhance patient safety, focusing specifically on cancer patients.

The tool includes a catalog of adverse events and a risk map, which helps healthcare providers implement best practices in their daily activities to improve clinical safety.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Improving patient safety in the inpatient setting through risk assessment and mitigation. Reche Navarro, MN.[2016]

In a study of 224 hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland, 42% experienced at least one adverse event (AE) related to care, with pain and constipation being the most common issues identified.

Among the AEs, 61% were deemed not preventable, highlighting the need for improved safety measures in oncology care to reduce the occurrence of these events.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool. Gerber, A., Da Silva Lopes, A., Szüts, N., et al.[2022]

A virtual interdisciplinary communication workshop was found to be feasible and acceptable for improving communication among oncology team members, based on feedback from 87 patients and 56 clinicians.

The workshop highlighted areas for improvement in communication practices, suggesting that targeted interventions can enhance patient care and safety in ambulatory oncology settings.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Development and Evaluation of a Data-Driven, Interactive Workshop to Facilitate Communication and Teamwork in Ambulatory Medical Oncology Settings. Blok, AC., Costa, DK., Wright, NC., et al.[2023]

A systematic review of 96 studies on communication training for oncology professionals highlighted that outcomes like communication confidence, observed skills, and patient satisfaction were commonly assessed, but varied widely across studies.

Experts recommend that future studies should clearly define outcomes linked to specific training objectives and assess them at multiple levels, including those of healthcare professionals, patients, and the interactions between them.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology - a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research. Fischer, F., Helmer, S., Rogge, A., et al.[2023]

References

1. Germany pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effectiveness of routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements for cancer care improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [2023]

2. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Impact of patient-reported outcomes in oncology: a longitudinal analysis of patient-physician communication. [2022]

3. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Adult patient communication experiences with nurses in cancer care settings: a qualitative study. [2022]

4. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines. [2021]

5. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Patient feedback to improve quality of patient-centred care in public hospitals: a systematic review of the evidence. [2020]

6. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records. [2021]

7. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Improving patient safety in the inpatient setting through risk assessment and mitigation. [2016]

8. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool. [2022]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Development and Evaluation of a Data-Driven, Interactive Workshop to Facilitate Communication and Teamwork in Ambulatory Medical Oncology Settings. [2023]

10. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Awareness and compliance with pharmacovigilance requirements amongst UK oncology healthcare professionals. [2020]

11. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology - a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research. [2023]

12. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Most Common Feedback Themes in Communication Skills Training in an Internal Medicine Residency Program: Lessons from the Resident Audio-Recording Project. [2019]

13. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cancer services patient experience in England: quantitative and qualitative analyses of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. [2023]

14. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Doctor-patient communication and satisfaction with care in oncology. [2022]