Dataset Information

Assessing suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care: a scenario-based qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shared care is the preferred model for long-term survivorship care by cancer survivors, general practitioners and specialists. However, survivorship care remains specialist-led. A risk-stratified approach has been proposed to select suitable patients for long-term shared care after survivors have completed adjuvant cancer treatment. This study aims to use patient scenarios to explore views on patient suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care across the risk spectrum from survivors, general practitioners and specialists.

Methods

Participants completed a brief questionnaire assessing demographics and clinical issues before a semi-structured in-depth interview. The interviews focused on the participant's view on suitability for long term cancer shared care, challenges and facilitators in delivering it and resources that would be helpful. We conducted thematic analysis using an inductive approach to discover new concepts and themes.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 10 cancer survivors, 6 general practitioners and 9 cancer specialists. The main themes that emerged were patient-centredness, team resilience underlined by mutual trust and stronger system supports by way of cancer-specific training, survivorship care protocols, shared information systems, care coordination and navigational supports.

Conclusions

Decisions on the appropriateness of this model for patients need to be made collaboratively with cancer survivors, considering their trust and relationship with their general practitioners and the support they need. Further research on improving mutual trust and operationalising support systems would assist in the integration of shared survivorship care.

SUBMITTER: Vuong K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7680065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIM:The aim of this study was to explore shared decision-making among residents, their families and staff to determine relevant strategies to support shared decision-making in long-term care (LTC). BACKGROUND:Meaningful engagement of long-term care home (LTCH) residents and their families in care decisions is key in the provision of quality of care. Shared decision-making is an interprofessional approach to increasing resident and family engagement in care decisions which can lead to higher quality decisions, more relevant care interventions and greater resident, family, and staff satisfaction. Despite these advantages, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in practice in LTC. METHODS:The study took place in one LTCH in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore how residents, family members and staff described how they collaborate when making decisions concerning resident care, and their perceptions of facilitators and challenges to a collaborative approach to decision-making. Individual interviews were conducted with nine participants: residents, families and staff. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis. FINDINGS:Four main themes that described resident, family and staff perspectives of shared decision-making were as follows: (a) oral communication pathways for information sharing; (b) supporting resident decision-making autonomy; (c) relational aspects of care facilitate shared decision-making; and (d) lack of effective communication creates barriers to shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:As the demand for LTC continues to increase, it is crucial that healthcare providers engage in collaborative, relational practices that foster high-quality resident care. While a relational approach to care can facilitate shared decision-making, there are opportunities to further cultivate shared decision-making in LTCHs through more effective communication and collaboration. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Understanding how information is shared and decisions are made can facilitate shared decision-making in LTCHs. The strategies identified from this study could be further co-developed and implemented in LTCHs.

Project description:BackgroundThe long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies.MethodsFollowing the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach.FindingsAfter screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings.ConclusionsFuture knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.

Project description:BackgroundShared medical appointments (SMAs) or group consultations have been promoted in primary care to improve workload pressures, resource-use efficiency and patient self-management of long-term conditions (LTCs). However, few studies have explored stakeholders' perspectives of this novel care delivery model in the English NHS context, particularly patients' views and experiences of SMAs.MethodSemi-structured interviews were used to explore the perspectives of stakeholders (21 patients, 17 primary care staff, 2 commissioners and 2 SMA training providers) with and without SMA experience from a range of geographical and socio-economic backgrounds in the North East and North Cumbrian region of England. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine perceptions around impact on patient care and outcomes and barriers and facilitators to implementation.ResultsThree main themes were identified: 'Value of sharing', 'Appropriateness of group setting', 'Implementation processes'. Patients experiences and perceptions of SMAs were largely positive yet several reported reservations about sharing personal information, particularly in close-knit communities where the risk of breaching confidentiality was perceived to be greater. SMAs were considered by patients and staff to be inappropriate for certain personal conditions or for some patient groups. Staff reported difficulties engaging sufficient numbers of patients to make them viable and having the resources to plan and set them up in practice. Whilst patients and staff anticipated that SMAs could deliver high quality care more efficiently than 1:1 appointments, none of the practices had evaluated the impact SMAs had on patient health outcomes or staff time.ConclusionStakeholder experiences of SMA use in English primary care are largely similar to those reported in other countries. However, several important cultural barriers were identified in this setting. Further work is needed to better understand how patient and staff perceptions, experiences and engagement with SMAs change with regular use over time. Concerns regarding staff capacity, additional resource requirements and numbers of eligible patients per practice suggest SMAs may only be feasible in some smaller practices if facilitated by primary care networks. Further mixed-method evaluations of SMAs are needed to inform the evidence base regarding the effectiveness, efficiency and feasibility of SMAs long-term and subsequently their wider roll-out in English primary care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known about the sustainability of behavioral change interventions in long-term care (LTC). Following a cluster randomized trial of an intervention to improve staff communication (CONNECT), we conducted focus groups of direct care staff and managers to elicit their perceptions of factors that enhance or reduce sustainability in the LTC setting. The overall aim was to generate hypotheses about how to sustain complex interventions in LTC. METHODS:In eight facilities, we conducted 15 focus groups with 83 staff who had participated in at least one intervention session. Where possible, separate groups were conducted with direct care staff and managers. An interview guide probed for staff perceptions of intervention salience and sustainability. Framework analysis of coded transcripts was used to distill insights about sustainability related to intervention features, organizational context, and external supports. RESULTS:Staff described important factors for intervention sustainability that are particularly challenging in LTC. Because of the tremendous diversity in staff roles and education level, interventions should balance complexity and simplicity, use a variety of delivery methods and venues (e.g., group and individual sessions, role-play/storytelling), and be inclusive of many work positions. Intervention customizability and flexibility was particularly prized in this unpredictable and resource-strapped environment. Contextual features noted to be important include addressing the frequent lack of trust between direct care staff and managers and ensuring that direct care staff directly observe manager participation and support for the program. External supports suggested to be useful for sustainability include formalization of changes into facility routines, using "train the trainer" approaches and refresher sessions. High staff turnover is common in LTC, and providing materials for new staff orientation was reported to be important for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS:When designing or implementing complex behavior change interventions in LTC, consideration of these particularly salient intervention features, contextual factors, and external supports identified by staff may enhance sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00636675.

Project description:BackgroundHospitalization is a significant and stressful experience for children, which may have both short-term and long-term negative consequences. Anaesthesia-Web is a Web-based preparation program that has been well received and is being used worldwide to reduce stressful experiences, increase understanding, and exchange information in pediatric care. A deeper theoretical and educational understanding encompassing children's learning processes on Anaesthesia-Web may optimize and support the development and design of similar websites for children in pediatric care.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to elucidate key educational principles in the development and design of websites for children in pediatric care.MethodsA directed qualitative content analysis was applied to analyze the content and design of Anaesthesia-Web from a theoretical and educational perspective. preunderstanding, motivation, learning processes, and learning outcome were used to analyze the learning possibilities of Anaesthesia-Web for children prior to contact with pediatric care.ResultsWe found 4 themes characterizing children's learning opportunities on Anaesthesia-Web in the analysis: "In charge of my learning"; "Discover and play"; "Recognize and identify"; and "Getting feedback". The analysis showed that Anaesthesia-Web offers children control and enables the use of the website based on interest and ability. This is important in terms of motivation and each child's individual preunderstanding. Through discovery and play, children can receive, process, and apply the information on Anaesthesia-Web cognitively, emotionally, and by active participation. Play stimulates motivation and is very important in a child's learning process. When facing pediatric care, children need to develop trust and feel safe so that they can focus on learning. On Anaesthesia-Web, children can recognize situations and feelings and can find someone with whom to identify. Several features on the website promote feedback, which is necessary to judge learning achievements, confirm understanding, and embody the need for repetition.ConclusionsWeb-based preparation programs are important learning resources in pediatric care. Content and design needs to change from simply providing information to embracing the importance of a child's need to process information to learn and fully understand. By developing Web-based preparation programs that include educational principles, Web-based technology can be used to its fullest advantage as a learning resource for children. The 4 educational themes described in this study should help future similar website developments within pediatric care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the published literature on practitioner, patient and carer views and experiences of shared medical appointments (SMAs) for the management of long-term conditions in primary care.DesignSystematic review of qualitative primary studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) and Scopus (SciVerse) from database starting dates to June 2019. Practitioner, patient and carer perspectives were coded separately. Deductive coding using a framework approach was followed by thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies.ResultsWe identified 18 unique studies that reported practitioner (n=11), patient (n=14) and/or carer perspectivs(n=3). Practitioners reported benefits of SMAs including scope for comprehensive patient-led care, peer support, less repetition and improved efficiency compared with 1:1 care. Barriers included administrative challenges and resistance from patients and colleagues, largely due to uncertainties and unclear expectations. Skilled facilitators, tailoring of SMAs to patient groups, leadership support and teamwork were reported to be important for successful delivery. Patients' reported experiences were largely positive with the SMAs considered a supportive environment in which to share and learn about self-care, though the need for good facilitation was recognised. Reports of carer experience were limited but included improved communication between carer and patient.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate whether views and experiences vary between staff, medical condition and/or patient characteristics. Participant experiences may be subject to reporting bias. Policies and guidance regarding best practice need to be developed with consideration given to resource requirements. Further research is needed to capture views about wider and co-occurring conditions, to hear from those without SMA experience and to understand which groups of patients and practitioners should be brought together in an SMA for best effect.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141893.

Project description:BackgroundInsight into factors that influence antibiotic prescribing is crucial when developing interventions aimed at a more rational use of antibiotics. We examined factors that influence antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities, and present a conceptual model that integrates these factors.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians (n?=?13) and nursing staff (n?=?13) in five nursing homes and two residential care homes in the central-west region of the Netherlands. An iterative analysis was applied to interviews with physicians to identify and categorize factors that influence antibiotic prescribing, and to integrate these into a conceptual model. This conceptual model was triangulated with the perspectives of nursing staff.ResultsThe analysis resulted in the identification of six categories of factors that can influence the antibiotic prescribing decision: the clinical situation, advance care plans, utilization of diagnostic resources, physicians' perceived risks, influence of others, and influence of the environment. Each category comprises several factors that may influence the decision to prescribe or not prescribe antibiotics directly (e.g. pressure of patients' family leading to antibiotic prescribing) or indirectly via influence on other factors (e.g. unfamiliarity with patients resulting in a higher physician perceived risk of non-treatment, in turn resulting in a higher tendency to prescribe antibiotics).ConclusionsOur interview study shows that several non-rational factors may affect antibiotic prescribing decision making in long-term care facilities, suggesting opportunities to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use. We developed a conceptual model that integrates the identified categories of influencing factors and shows the relationships between those categories. This model may be used as a practical tool in long-term care facilities to identify local factors potentially leading to inappropriate prescribing, and to subsequently intervene at the level of those factors to promote appropriate antibiotic prescribing.