Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on lung cancer screening in the UK: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to decrease mortality. Low lung cancer survival rates in the UK, driven primarily by late-stage presentation, provide the impetus for implementing screening. Nascent guidance on screening in the UK recommends primary care case-finding. However, the potential impact and acceptability on primary care, and the opportunistic utilisation of other case-finding routes, such as pharmacies, smoking cessation services, and respiratory clinics, have not been fully explored. AIM:To explore healthcare professionals' views and perspectives about lung cancer screening and their preparedness and willingness to be involved in its implementation. DESIGN & SETTING:A qualitative study was carried out with semi-structured interviews conducted with GPs, pharmacists, staff from smoking cessation services within Southwark and Lambeth in London, and staff from respiratory clinics in Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in London between April 2018 and December 2018. METHOD:Sixteen participants were interviewed and the interview transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS:Participants described lung cancer screening as an important diagnostic tool for capturing lung cancer at an earlier stage and in increasing survivorship. However, the majority expressed a lack of awareness and understanding, uncertainty and concerns about the validity of screening, and the potential impact on their patients and workload. CONCLUSION:Study participants had mixed opinions about lung cancer screening and expressed their concerns about its implementation. Addressing these concerns by providing resources and effective and detailed guidelines for their use may lead to greater engagement and willingness to be involved in lung cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Margariti C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7465573 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on lung cancer screening in the UK: a qualitative study.

Margariti Charikleia C Kordowicz Maria M Selman Gillian G Nair Arjun A Akande Yvonne Y Saleem Azhar A Rua Tiago T

BJGP open 20200825 3

<h4>Background</h4>Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to decrease mortality. Low lung cancer survival rates in the UK, driven primarily by late-stage presentation, provide the impetus for implementing screening. Nascent guidance on screening in the UK recommends primary care case-finding. However, the potential impact and acceptability on primary care, and the opportunistic utilisation of other case-finding routes, such as pharmacies, smoking cessation ...[more]

PMID: 32522753

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHome death is one of the key performance indicators of the quality of palliative care service delivery. Such a measure has direct implications on everyone involved at the end of life of a dying patient, including a patient's carers and healthcare professionals. There are no studies that focus on the views of the team of integrated inpatient and community palliative care service staff on the issue of preference of place of death of their patients. This study addresses that gap.MethodsThirty-eight participants from five disciplines in two South Australian (SA) public hospitals working within a multidisciplinary inpatient and community integrated specialist palliative care service, participated in audio-recorded focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.ResultsTwo major and five minor themes were identified. The first theme focused on the role of healthcare professionals in decisions regarding place of death, and consisted of two minor themes, that healthcare professionals act to: a) mediate conversations between patient and carer; and b) adjust expectations and facilitate informed choice. The second theme, healthcare professionals' perspectives on the preference of place of death, comprised three minor themes, identifying: a) the characteristics of the preferred place of death; b) home as a romanticised place of death; and c) the implications of idealising home death.ConclusionHealthcare professionals support and actively influence the decision-making of patients and family regarding preference of place of death whilst acting to protect the relationship between the patient and their family/carer. Further, according to healthcare professionals, home is neither always the most preferred nor the ideal place for death. Therefore, branding home death as the ideal and hospital death as a failure sets up families/carers to feel guilty if a home death is not achieved and undermines the need for and appropriateness of death in institutionalised settings.

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:BackgroundMistrust and conflicts in patient-provider relationships (PPR) have become prevalent in China. The frequency of verbal and physical violence against healthcare workers has been increasing, but few interventions seem to be effective. Limited prior research has focused on the perspectives of healthcare professionals in training. This paper aimed to understand their viewpoints and conceptualize potentially actionable areas for future policy interventions.MethodsWe analyzed de-identified training registration data of a convenience sample of 151 healthcare students and 38 junior professionals from 20 provinces in China. One open-ended question in the registration form asked the participant to comment on PPRs in China. We used qualitative thematic coding to analyze the narrative data. All answers were categorized into three overarching frames: patients, providers, and external agencies/regulations. Frequently mentioned themes in each frame were evaluated to generate an overall theoretical framework.FindingsAlthough fewer than 25% indicated that current PPRs are "good" or acceptable, 98% of respondents were optimistic about the future improvement of these relationships. The leading factors of PPRs mentioned as patient-relevant were eroding trust in the physician, unrealistic expectations, and ineffective communication. The provider-relevant themes highlighted were poor service quality, ineffective communication, and heavy workload. Leading themes relevant to external agencies or regulations were dysfunctional administration system, negative media reports, and disparity in healthcare resource distribution.InterpretationHealthcare professionals in training had a negative view of the current situation but had confidence in future improvement. Patient, provider, and societal factors all contributed to the tension between patients and providers. All aspects of the healthcare sector should be carefully considered when contemplating policy or social interventions to improve the patient-provider relationship.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care.DesignNested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes.SettingThis qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST.Participants44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial.ResultsTrial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial.Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings.Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes.ConclusionIn general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder.Trial registration numberInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Results.

Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on lung cancer screening in the UK: a qualitative study.

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on lung cancer screening in the UK: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets