Effectiveness of Bi-lingual Multidisciplinary Simulation-based Training in Improving Communication and Breaking Bad-News Skills

Full text rendered from the published PDF. The PDF is the version of record; if the two differ, the PDF governs. Figures and tables are available in the PDF version only in this issue.

Abstract

Background: Healthcare worker (HCW)-patient communication is an essential element of every patient’s journey, and evidence links good communication with favourable patient experiences and outcomes. Simulation-based training (SBT) is a promising and effective tool to improve such communication.

Aim: To develop a bilingual SBT programme in communication skills for all HCWs in an academic tertiary hospital, to improve patient care, experiences and outcomes.

Methods: This was a quasi-experimental design, conducted in 2018 at King Abdulaziz University (KAU). We designed and delivered a bilingual, simulation-based, full-day course for HCWs (both clinical and administrative), and measured its impact by comparing pre-and post-course test scores, participant feedback, and instructor performance satisfaction indices.

Results: We trained 318 HCWs over 15 days, using 10 instructors. Post-test scores showed individual and overall improvement. The average scores were 26.6% (14-40%) for the pre-test and 55.8% (37-70%) for the post-test, with an average improvement of 29% (P<0.005). Participant feedback was 77% positive and in favour of more training. The average instructor performance satisfaction score was 96.2% (92-99%).

Conclusion: We demonstrated the positive impact of SBT on communication skills for both clinical and administrative HCWs. We also demonstrated the sustainability and scalability of this course.

Keywords: Breaking bad news, Communication, NURSE, Simulation education, SPIKES

Introduction

Healthcare worker (HCW)-patient communication has been shown to play an integral role in the success of therapeutic outcomes in all medical settings. Multiple studies have shown the potential negative impact of poor patient-centred communication on clinical outcomes [1-5]. A 2010 review [2] showed that “...communication has the potential to help regulate patients’ emotions, facilitate comprehension of medical information, and allow for better identification of patients’ needs, perceptions, and expectations...” and that “... Patients reporting good communication with their doctor are more likely to be satisfied with their care, and especially to share pertinent information for accurate diagnosis of their problems, follow advice, and adhere to the prescribed treatment...”. It also showed that clinicians tend to overestimate their skills when it comes to patient communication [2]. In addition to this over-estimation, the literature found other barriers to proper HCW-patient communication, including cultural differences, patient fears, provider anxiety, burden of work, and lack of training. Simulation-based training (SBT) is a promising training modality that can be utilised to address this gap, improving patient communication and hence clinical outcomes. Hybrid simulation integrated training in communication and breaking bad news has resulted in improved providers’ communication skills, as well as providing an opportunity to identify and address individual and system gaps [10,11].

As part of its continuous efforts, the Clinical Skills and Simulation Center (CSSC) at King Abdulaziz University (KAU) initiated this project with the aim of improving the communication skills of its HCWs. The study includes possibly the highest number of participants out of any study in the literature; we have not found any previous report that approaches more than tens of participants. Another unique feature of this study is the fact that we used Arabic translation of the tools for breaking bad news: SPIKES, NURSE and CUS. SPIKES (Setting up, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge, Emotions, Strategy/Summary) is a six-step tool for breaking bad news; NURSE (Naming, Understanding, Respecting, Supporting, Exploring) is a helpful tool for addressing patient emotion; and CUS (Concerned, Uncomfortable, Safety) is a third tool for helping to improve communication [7-9]. These tools are described in the literature as having been used effectively in English and a few other languages, but our report contains the first mention of their use in the Arabic language. In addition, the training of administrative HCWs in such a project has not previously been reported in the literature. In this study, we sought to develop a bilingual SBT programme in communication skills (including breaking bad news and difficult communication) for all HCWs at the King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH), as part of a continuous effort to improve patient care, experiences and outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A. Study Design

This is a quasi-experimental design, conducted in 2018 over a period of five months (April-September) in the CSSC at KAUH.

B. Study Tools:

The course was developed by simulation and education experts working at the CSSC. An interdisciplinary committee of physicians, nurses and educators designed a bilingual, full-day (eight hours) SBT course for HCWs at KAUH. We recruited 10 instructors (simulation experts) from various disciplines (anaesthesiology, emergency medicine, paediatrics, quality improvement and education specialists) and backgrounds (physicians, nurses, administration, management and professional actors). All instructors received unified training from the course directors to ensure a standardised delivery method.

C. Study Participants:

Participants were recruited randomly. Both electronic and written course invitations were distributed within the hospital and made available to all HCWs at KAUH. No preferences or exclusion criteria were used; seats were allocated on a first-come, first-served basis to avoid any biases by pre-selecting participants. We ensured that the invitations were extended to non-clinical as well as clinical HCWs. D. Implementation: The course consisted of four phases. Phase A: Introduction and Pre-test (30 minutes):

Each course started with an introduction, which included a pre-test. The questions targeted the determined objectives of the course. The test was reviewed by 10 educators and was piloted on 20 participants to ensure its validity and reliability. It consisted of 14 multiple choice questions (MCQ) and one short answer question. The MCQs covered routes and modes of communication, verbal and non-verbal communication, while the short answer question was about tools used when breaking bad news (Appendix 1). Participants were also provided with handouts containing learning materials. Phase B: Didactic sessions (240 minutes): The introduction was followed by four didactic sessions of 60 minutes each, including breaks (Table 1). Phase C: Practice Groups (180 minutes) The didactic sessions were followed by two 90- minute practice sessions, using advanced illness scenarios pre-written with the consensus of simulation experts (Table 2). The instructions for scenario implementation were: Divide participants into subgroups of three to five. In each subgroup, one participant will be assigned Translation of validated communication and tools for breaking bad news, such as SPIKES, NURSE and CUS, into the Arabic language for clinical use

References

  1. Lee SJ, Back AL, Block SD, Stewart SK Enhancing physician-patient communication Hematology 2002;2002(1 :464–83
  2. Ha JF, Longnecker N Doctor-patient communication: a review Ochsner J 2010;10(1 :38–43
  3. Norouzinia R, Aghabarari M, Shiri M, Karimi M, Samami E. Communication Barriers Perceived by Nurses and Patients. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;8(6):65–74.
  4. Jangland E, Gunningberg L, Carlsson M. Patients’ and relatives’ complaints about encounters and communication in health care: evidence for quality improvement. Patient Education and Counseling. 2009:199-204.
  5. Newell S, Jordan. The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(1):76–87.
  6. Bensing JM, Sluijs EM. Evaluation of an General for course interview training Medicine. & Science Practitioners. Social 1985;20(7):737–44.
  7. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES - A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-311.
  8. CUS tool - improving communication and teamwork in the surgical environment module [Internet]. AHRQ [cited 2020 May5]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/hai/tools/ambulatory-surgery/sections/implementation/trainingtools/cus-tool.html
  9. October TW, Dizon ZB, Arnold RM, Rosenberg Physician AR. Characteristics of Empathetic State Pediatric ments During Intensive Care Conferences with Family Members: A Qualitative Study. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(3): e180351. Published 2018 Jul 6
  10. Parry S. A, Dennis D, Furness Challenging conversations with simulated patients. Clin Teach. 2017;14(6):397–400.
  11. Lifchez SD, Redett RJ 3 rd. A standardized patient model to teach and assess professionalism and communication skills: the effect of personality type on performance. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):297–301.
  12. Debriefing for clinical learning [Internet] Patient Safety Network [cited 2020 May5] Available from: https://psnet ahrq gov/primer/debriefingclinical-learning
  13. Kozhevnikov D, Morrison LJ, Ellman MS. Simulation training in palliative care: State of the art and Future Directions. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2018;Volume 9:915–24.
  14. Randall D, Garbutt D, Barnard M. Using simulation as a learning experience in clinical teams to learn about palliative and end-of-life care: A literature review. Death Stud. 2018;42(3):172–183.
  15. R. FM, Nash Johnston S, Coyer Kirkpatrick’s and Simulation of Evaluation in Debriefing Health A Education: Care Systematic Review. Educ. Nurs J 2018;57(7):393-398. Figure 1: The average pre-test and post-test scores were 26.6% (14-40%) and 55.8% (37-70%) respectively.