Dataset Information

Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scar assessment plays a key role during burns aftercare, to monitor scar remodelling and patients' psychosocial well-being. To aid assessment, subjective scar assessment scales are available that use health-care professionals' and patients' opinions to score scar characteristics. The subjective scales are more widely used in clinical practice over objective scar measures. To date, there is no research that considers patients' views on scar assessment and the role of subjective and objective assessment tools. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients' perspectives on scar assessment and the utility of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 adult burn patients who were being reviewed in clinic for scarring. Participants were recruited via their clinical care team and research nurses at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Topics covered during interview included patient experience of scar assessment, the use of scar assessment tools and discussion surrounding important factors to be addressed when assessing scars. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted.

Results

Participants identified key subthemes that contribute towards the overarching theme of patient-centred scar assessment. These are: patient-led care; continuity in care; learning how to self-manage scarring; and psychological assessment. Links were demonstrated between these subthemes and the remaining themes that describe scar assessment strategies, indicating their potential patient-centred contributions. The subjective opinions of clinicians were found to be valued above the use of subjective or objective scar assessment tools. Scar assessment scales were perceived to be a beneficial method for self-reflection in relation to psychosocial functioning. However, minimal feedback and review of completed assessment scales led to uncertainty regarding their purpose. Patients perceived objective tools to be of primary use for health-care professionals, though the measures may aid patients' understanding of scar properties.

Conclusions

Scar assessment tools should be used to support, rather than replace, health-care professionals' subjective judgements of scarring. Adapting the way in which clinicians introduce and use scar assessment tools, according to patient needs, can support a patient-centred approach to scar assessment.

SUBMITTER: Price K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8240530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One of the promises of digital health is to better engage patients and improve care for vulnerable populations. Patients with drug use disorders are a vulnerable population who often do not receive the care they need, both for their drug use disorders as well as their other health care needs. Appropriate primary care for patients with drug use disorders needs to be patient-centered, holistic, highly accessible, and engaging. The electronic Case-finding and Help Assessment Tool (eCHAT) was designed as a patient-centered tool for the identification and measurement of problematic health behaviors and mood states. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to explore the patient experience of eCHAT at an Australian family medicine clinic for patients with drug use disorders. METHODS:A total of 12 semistructured interviews were conducted with patients, two interviews were conducted with doctors, and one focus group was conducted with patient advocates who were former patients of the clinic where the study took place. The transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS:The key themes identified from the interviews and the focus group were as follows: (1) eCHAT helped reduce stigma related to drug use in the doctor-patient consultation, (2) restricted answer options impacted the ability of patients to tell their stories, (3) patient-related response factors, (4) increased efficiency in the consultation process, and (5) divergence in level of concern around security and privacy. CONCLUSIONS:eCHAT has the potential to help vulnerable patients in primary care to engage more with their doctors and reduce experiences of stigma. eCHAT may be a useful digital health intervention in a family medicine clinic for patients with drug use disorders. It has the potential to improve patient engagement and access to health care, which are crucial areas of need in this vulnerable population. However, it is important to clearly communicate the privacy risk of digital health tools and to implement eCHAT such that it will add value to, rather than displace, in-person consultations with the family doctor.

Project description:IntroductionLumbar discectomy is a widely used surgical procedure internationally with the majority of patients experiencing significant benefit. However, approximately 20% of patients report suboptimal functional recovery and quality of life. The impact and meaning of the surgical experience from the patients' perspective are not fully understood. Furthermore, there is limited evidence guiding postoperative management with significant clinical practice variation and it is unclear if current postoperative support is valued, beneficial or meets patients' needs and expectations. This study aims to address the evidence gap by moving beyond current knowledge to gain insight into the lived experiences relating to patients' lumbar discectomy surgery journey. Results will inform more meaningful and specific care, thus, enhance rehabilitation and outcomes.Methods and analysisA qualitative investigation using interpretative phenomenology analysis (IPA) will provide a flexible inductive research approach. A purposive sample (n=20) of patients undergoing primary discectomy will be recruited from one UK NHS secondary care centre. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted postsurgery discharge. A topic guide, developed from the literature and our previous work with input from two patient co-investigators, will guide interviews with the flexibility to explore interesting or patient-specific points raised. Providing longitudinal data, patients will keep weekly diaries capturing experiences and change over time throughout 12 months following surgery. A second interview will be completed 1?year postsurgery with its topic guide informed by initial findings. This combination of patient interviews and diaries will capture patients' attitudes and beliefs regarding surgery and recovery, facilitators and barriers to progress, experiences regarding return to activities/function and interactions with healthcare professionals. The rich density of data will be thematically analysed in accordance with IPA, supported by NVivo software.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0459; IRAS 241345). Conclusions will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to quantitatively assess stress, anxiety and obsessive thinking related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and qualitatively appraise perceptions in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used mixed-methods design in patients referred for CR in 2 centres which delivered uninterrupted service during COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and in-person interviews (combination of a priori questions and probing) were used to evaluate patient experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.ResultsIn total, 109 patients (mean age 59 ± 10, 20% women) were included in quantitative part and in 30 of them we conducted the in-person interviews. About a quarter of patients met HADS threshold for anxiety and depression while CAS and OCS results demonstrated extremely low possibility of coronavirus related dysfunctional thinking (3%) and anxiety (2%). The CSS indicated the most prevalent concerns were related to COVID-19 vaccines safety (60%) and fear of getting infected (60%). During interviews, patients perceived the CR as well as health care providers as safe, trustworthy and with enough support to avoid or manage COVID-19 related health risks.ConclusionsOverall, patients reported AMI affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 related stress and anxiety were relatively low and mostly related to general views of infectious disease. CR was perceived safe and trustworthy in terms of primary disease and COVID-19.Lay summaryThis mixed-method study included 109 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 and focused on their experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.-Patients reported acute myocardial infarction affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic.-The COVID-19 related concerns were mostly related to general views of infectious disease (vaccine safety, fear of getting infected) whilst cardiac rehabilitation was perceived safe and trustworthy environment during COVID-19.

Project description:IntroductionThere has been a 65% increase in lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) worldwide over the last 13 years, with costs of £26 million to the UK National Health Service annually. Patient dissatisfaction with outcome and persistent pain and disability incurs further costs. Three trials provide low-quality evidence for the role of physiotherapy. Our UK surveys investigating physiotherapy/surgeon practice concluded rehabilitation should be tailored to the individual patient owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. This study will explore the perceptions of patients who undergo LSFS to inform precision rehabilitation.Methods and analysisA qualitative study, using interpretive phenomenological analysis, will recruit a purposive sample (n=40) to ensure patterns of similarity and difference in their journeys can be explored. In-depth semistructured interviews will be undertaken following discharge from hospital and at 12 months postsurgery. Patients' preoperative and postoperative experiences, underlying attitudes and beliefs towards the surgical intervention, facilitators and barriers to recovery, adherence to advice and physiotherapy, experiences of rehabilitation and return to normal function/activity/work will be explored. A 12-month patient diary will provide real time access to patient data, capturing a weekly record of life as lived, including symptoms, medication, experiences of stages of recovery, rehabilitation adherence, healthcare professional appointments, attitudes, their feelings and experiences throughout their journey. Data will be analysed in a number of stages in accordance with interpretive phenomenological analysis, supported using NVivo software. Analysis of the first interviews and patient diaries will afford a rich density of data to build an overall understanding of the patients' lived experiences, informing the 12-month interview. Strategies (eg, reflexivity) will ensure trustworthiness.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval (IRAS 223283). Findings will ensure that patient-driven data inform precision rehabilitation by understanding the patient journey. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.