Kathryn Pollak

PURPOSE: Cancer is now the leading cause of non-AIDS death in the US population with HIV. People living with HIV (PLWH) are known to have lower cancer treatment rates and worse cancer outcomes. Disparate cancer treatment is driven by health system, patient, and clinician factors. Little attention has been given to the factors oncologists consider when making cancer treatment recommendations to PLWH. This study sought to examine oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices that influence cancer treatment decision-making. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study used qualitative methods to explore oncologists' treatment decision-making processes for PLWH and cancer. The sample included 25 radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists from 2 academic centers and 5 community practices. The interview domains were developed from the Andersen Healthcare Utilization Model, the Health Belief Model, and the PEN-3 Model, as well as our prior survey research. RESULTS: This study describes elements of cancer treatment decision-making for PLWH. Oncologists highlighted the need for formal HIV education to support cancer treatment. One main concern with patient-provider interactions pertained to maintaining patient confidentiality during clinical encounters. Lastly, the importance of multidisciplinary care among health care providers allowed oncologists to facilitate both cancer care and logistical support. CONCLUSIONS: As cancer becomes an increasingly common cause of death among PLWH, it is critical to understand the drivers of the observed disparities in cancer treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to describe oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward patients who have a comorbid diagnosis of HIV and cancer. Several themes for future interventions emerge, including HIV training for cancer care providers, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, enhancing HIV education for oncology learners and clinicians, and minimizing implicit bias.

CONTEXT: While professional societies and expert panels have recommended quality indicators related to advance care planning (ACP) documentation, including using structured documentation templates, it is unclear how clinicians document these conversations. OBJECTIVE: To explore how clinicians document ACP, specifically, which components of these conversations are documented. METHODS: A codebook was developed based on existing frameworks for ACPs and documentation. ACP documentation from a hospital medicine quality improvement project conducted from Nov 2019 - Aug 2021 were included and assessed. Documentation was examined for the presence or absence of each component within the coding schema. Clinician documented ACP using three different note types: template (only template prompts were used), template plus (authors added additional text to the template), and free text only. ACP note components were analyzed by note type and author department. RESULTS: A total of 182 ACP notes were identified. The most common note type was template plus (58%), followed by free text (28%) and template (14%). The most frequent components across all note types were: important relationships to patient (92%), and discussion of life-sustaining treatment preferences (87%). There was considerable heterogeneity in the components across note types. The presence of components focused on illness understanding and treatment decisions differed significantly between note types (p < 0.05). Components on preference for medical information, emotional state, or spiritual support were rarely included across all note types. CONCLUSION: This study provides a preliminary exploration of ACP documentation and found that templates may influence what information is documented after an ACP conversation.

IMPORTANCE: Communication between cardiologists and patients can significantly affect patient comprehension, adherence, and satisfaction. To our knowledge, a coaching intervention to improve cardiologist communication has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a communication coaching intervention to teach evidence-based communication skills to cardiologists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-arm randomized clinical trial was performed at outpatient cardiology clinics at an academic medical center and affiliated community clinics, and from February 2019 through March 2020 recruited 40 cardiologists and audio recorded 161 patients in the preintervention phase and 240 in the postintervention phase. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to January 2023. INTERVENTIONS: Half of the cardiologists were randomized to receive a coaching intervention that involved three 1:1 sessions, 2 of which included feedback on their audio-recorded encounters. Communication coaches taught 5 skills derived from motivational interviewing: (1) sitting down and making eye contact with all in the room, (2) open-ended questions, (3) reflective statements, (4) empathic statements, and (5) "What questions do you have?" MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coders unaware of study arm coded these behaviors in the preintervention and postintervention audio-recorded encounters (objective communication). Patients completed a survey after the visit to report perceptions of communication quality (subjective communication). RESULTS: Analysis included 40 cardiologists (mean [SD] age, 47 [9] years; 7 female and 33 male) and 240 patients in the postintervention phase (mean [SD] age, 58 [15] years; 122 female, 118 male). When controlling for preintervention behaviors, cardiologists in the intervention vs control arm were more likely to make empathic statements (intervention: 52 of 117 [44%] vs control: 31 of 113 [27%]; P = .05); to ask, "What questions do you have?" (26 of 117 [22%] vs 6 of 113 [5%]; P = .002); and to respond with empathy when patients expressed negative emotions (mean ratio of empathic responses to empathic opportunities, 0.50 vs 0.20; P = .004). These effects did not vary based on patient or cardiologist race or sex. We found no arm differences for open-ended questions or reflective statements and were unable to assess differences in patient ratings due to ceiling effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, a communication coaching intervention improved 2 key communication behaviors: expressing empathy and eliciting questions. Empathic communication is a harder-level skill that may improve the patient experience and information comprehension. Future work should explore how best to assess the effect of communication coaching on patient perceptions of care and clinical outcomes and determine its effectiveness in larger, more diverse samples of cardiologists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03464110.