Communication skills training (CST) in hematology/oncology fellowships: Results from a multi-institutional needs assessment survey.

Abstract

e21032 Background: Effective communication is critical in hematology/oncology (HO) practice, yet formal training in is variable across fellowship programs. Standardizing CST may improve fellows’ preparedness for challenging scenarios and enhance patient outcomes. This project assesses HO fellows' comfort and confidence in communication tasks, attitudes toward CST, and preferred educational methods. Methods: An anonymous needs assessment electronic survey was developed based on a literature review and expert input. It was distributed to fellows from 7 university-based HO fellowship programs via email. The survey evaluated comfort in communication scenarios, confidence in communication, prior experience with CST, importance of CST, barriers to learning, and preferred CST methods. 4-point Likert scales assessed comfort, confidence and importance, while multiple-response questions captured barriers and preferences. Open-ended questions provided qualitative insights. Responses were anonymous and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 61 fellows completed the survey (35% response rate). 38% were PGY4, 28% PGY5, and 34% PGY6+. Most (77%) reported English as their first language. Scenarios with the highest discomfort included “discussing medical literature” (46%), “discussing changes in treatment and prognosis at disease progression” (30%), and “explaining complex test results” (28%). 49% were uncomfortable “discussing clinical trial enrollment”, despite 85% discussing enrollment at least monthly. Most were comfortable simplifying medical terms, showing empathy, and explaining different treatment modalities, with high confidence in delivering medical knowledge (93%) and proposing treatment plans (90%). Results were consistent across training levels and language backgrounds. Many (39%) had no prior formal CST, and 20% had no feedback on communication skills while in residency/fellowship. Majority (95%) supported formal CST in curricula, while 80% considered CST as or more important than didactics. All deemed learning effective communication strategies important. Common barriers included time constraints (82%), limited practice opportunities (39%), lack of emphasis in training (36%), and inherent discomfort with the topic (16%). Preferred CST models were rolling role play (mini scenarios) (44%), role play with standardized patients (41%) or peers (38%) over faculty role play (30%). Conclusions: This survey found strong support for formal CST including active learning methods like role play while highlighting fellows’ discomfort in key communication situations and barriers to learning. This roadmap can help fellowship programs design and implement effective CST curricula for ACGME competence-based training. Future studies should evaluate the impact of such curricula on fellows’ competencies and patient satisfaction.