A Communication Intervention for Training Southern European Oncologists to Recognize Psychosocial Morbidity in Cancer. I - Development of the Model and Preliminary Results on Physicians' Satisfaction

BACKGROUND: The detection of psychosocial distress is a significant communication problem in Southern Europe and other countries. Work in this area is hampered by a lack of data. Because not much is known about training aimed at improving the recognition of psychosocial disorders in cancer patients, we developed a basic course model for medical oncology professionals. METHODS: A specific educational and experiential model (12 hours divided into 2 modules) involving formal teaching (ie, journal articles, large-group presentations), practice in small groups (ie, small-group exercises and role playing), and discussion in large groups was developed with the aim of improving the ability of oncologists to detect emotional disturbances in cancer patients (ie, depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders). RESULTS: A total of 30 oncologists from 3 Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Spain) participated in the workshop. The training course was well accepted by most participants who expressed general satisfaction and a positive subjective perception of the utility of the course for clinical practice. Of the total participants, 28 physicians (93.3%) thought that had they been exposed to this material sooner, they would have incorporated the techniques received in the workshop into their practices; 2 participants stated they would likely have done so. Half of the doctors (n = 15) believed that their clinical communication techniques were improved by participating in the workshop, and the remaining half thought that their abilities to communicate with cancer patients had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model is a feasible approach for oncologists and is easily applicable to various oncology settings. Further studies will demonstrate the effectiveness of this method for improving oncologists skills in recognizing emotional disorders in their patients with cancer.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.