Dataset Information

The burden of waiting to access pain clinic services: perceptions and experiences of patients with rheumatic conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Extensive waiting times before receiving services is a major barrier to adequate pain management. Waiting times may have a detrimental impact on patients' conditions and quality of life. However, there remains a lack of knowledge on the actual experiences of patients waiting to receive services, especially for those with rheumatic conditions. The present study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of perceptions and experiences of patients with rheumatic conditions regarding access to pain clinic services. The secondary objective was to identify possible solutions to improve this access according to patients' perspectives.

Methods

This qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews was conducted with adults with rheumatic conditions waiting to access pain clinics in the province of Quebec, Canada. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic content analysis.

Results

Twenty-six participants were interviewed (22 women and 4 men; mean age 54 ± 10 years). Four main themes were identified: 1) the perception that waiting time is unacceptably long; 2) how the lack of information affects patients' experiences of waiting; 3) patients' various expectations towards the pain clinic, from high hopes to disillusionment and 4) carrying an emotional, physical and financial burden resulting from the wait. Participants reported several solutions to improve the experience of waiting, including providing information to patients, increasing resources, improving prioritization processes and care coordination, and providing alternative interventions to patients during the wait.

Conclusions

For patients with rheumatic conditions, access to pain clinic services is challenging due to extensive waiting times. The burden it imposes on them adds to the existing challenge of living with a chronic rheumatic condition. The solutions identified by participants could serve as building blocks to develop and implement measures to improve patients' experience of accessing pain-related services.

SUBMITTER: Deslauriers S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7891805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBiologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying agents (b/tsDMARDs) have broadened the treatment landscape for autoimmune diseases particularly in patients refractory to conventional DMARDs. More recently, the introduction of biosimilars has reduced the price of bDMARDs, potentially improving accessibility. Though efficacy and safety have been described, patient attitudes to b/tsDMARDs are not well-understood. We aim to investigate patients' beliefs about biologic and biosimilar therapy, and the factors influencing their perceptions.MethodsPatient consumer groups (Arthritis Australia, Crohn's and Colitis Australia) assisted in advertising an online questionnaire for people with a self-reported diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The questionnaire incorporated the Belief about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and the single-item literacy screener (SILS). Sources and favourability of biologic/biosimilar information were analysed, using the chi-square and a non-parametric trend test for unordered and ordered categorical variables respectively, comparing respondents with IA and IBD.ResultsEight hundred and thirty eight people (686-IA, 144-IBD, 8 both) responded. 658 (79%) used b/tsDMARDs. The BMQ demonstrated high necessity belief (median 4.2) with moderate concerns (median 2.8) about biologics. 95% of respondents obtained medication information from specialists though most used multiple sources (median 4). The most positive resources were specialists and specialist nurses. 73/141 (52%) respondents with IBD obtained information from specialist nurses compared with 202/685 (29%) with IA (p = 0.012). Respondents with limited reading ability on SILS were more likely to discuss information with a general practitioner or pharmacist. Younger respondents and those with higher BMQ concern scores more frequently consulted less reliable sources (e.g. social media). 502 respondents (60%) answered the biosimilar questions. Only 23 (4.6%) reported currently using a biosimilar and 336 (66.9%) were unsure if biosimilars were available in Australia. Specialist recommendation was the most frequent factor that would influence a patient to change from originator to biosimilar (352/495, 71.1%).ConclusionsThere is a high level of trust in specialists' recommendations about b/tsDMARDs, although most people also utilise additional information sources. Contextual factors influencing resource selection include age, reading ability and degree of concern about medicines. People with IA and IBD have similar attitudes though those with IBD more frequently access specialist nurse advice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient medicines helpline services (PMHS) have been established at some National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, with the aim of providing medicines-related support to patients after they have been discharged. Addressing an important knowledge gap, this qualitative study sought to examine pharmacy professionals' experiences and perceptions of their PMHS, including perceived benefits of the services, and areas for improvement. METHODS:Invitations to participate were sent to all NHS Trusts within England that were known to provide a PMHS (n?=?117). Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 34 pharmacy professionals who provide a PMHS (female?=?76%, male?=?24%; predominantly from Acute NHS Trusts, 76%). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions (RE-AIM: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) informed the development of the interview schedule and the analysis of the data using framework analysis. RESULTS:Two themes were generated from the analysis: Resources, and Perceived benefits. Findings illustrate how providing a PMHS with limited resources (e.g., no specific funding, understaffed) negatively impacts the implementation, maintenance and reach of PMHS, and the ability to evidence their effectiveness. Despite operating with limited resources, PMHS are considered to have many benefits for patients and healthcare organisations (e.g., providing a 'safety net' to patients during the transfer of care period, providing reassurance to patients, helping to optimise patients' medicines, resolving medicines-related errors, reducing the burden upon other services, and providing the potential to improve hospital services based upon the content of enquiries). However, actually establishing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PMHS is challenging due to perceived logistical difficulties of collecting data, and the difficulty measuring hard outcomes (e.g., prevention of readmissions). CONCLUSIONS:PMHS are typically perceived to be under-resourced, although they are considered by pharmacy professionals to have several benefits for service users and NHS Trusts. For those sites that provide a PMHS, we recommend using enquiry data to improve hospital services, and to share ideas for implementing and maintaining a PMHS within a resource-limited context. High-quality research is needed to evidence the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PMHS, which may help to secure adequate resources for this service in the future.

Project description:BackgroundNHS ambulance service staff are at risk of poor physical and mental wellbeing because of the likelihood of encountering stressful and traumatic incidents. While reducing sickness absence and improving wellbeing support to ambulance staff is a key NHS priority, few studies have empirically documented a national picture to inform policy and service re-design. The study aimed to understand how ambulance service trusts in England deal with staff health and wellbeing, as well as how the staff perceive and use wellbeing services.MethodsTo achieve our aim, we undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with health and wellbeing leads and patient-facing ambulance staff, as well as undertaking documentary analysis of ambulance trust policies on wellbeing. The study was conducted both before and during the UK first COVID-19 pandemic wave. The University of Lincoln ethics committee and the Health Research Authority (HRA) granted ethical approval. Overall, we analysed 57 staff wellbeing policy documents across all Trusts. Additionally, we interviewed a Health and Wellbeing Lead in eight Trusts as well as 25 ambulance and control room staff across three Trusts.ResultsThe study highlighted clear variations between organisational and individual actions to support wellbeing across Trust policies. Wellbeing leads acknowledged real 'tensions' between individual and organisational responsibility for wellbeing. Behaviour changes around diet and exercise were perceived to have a positive effect on the overall mental health of their workforce. Wellbeing leads generally agreed that mental health was given primacy over other wellbeing initiatives. Variable experiences of health and wellbeing support were partly contingent on the levels of management support, impacted by organisational culture and service delivery challenges for staff.ConclusionAmbulance service work can impact upon physical and mental health, which necessitates effective support for staff mental health and wellbeing. Increasing the knowledge of line managers around the availability of services could improve engagement.