Dataset Information

Challenges and Learning Needs for Providers of Advanced Cancer Care: Focus Group Interviews with Physicians and Nurses.

ABSTRACT: Background: Implementation of integrated oncology and palliative care improves patient outcomes but may represent a demanding task for health care providers (HCPs). Objective: To explore physicians' and nurses' perceived challenges and learning needs in their care for patients with advanced cancer, and to analyze how these perceptions can provide insight on how to improve care for patients with advanced cancer in an integrated care model. Methods: Residents in oncology, oncologists, nurses, and palliative care physicians were recruited to participate in focus group interviews. Six focus group interviews were conducted with 35 informants. Data were analyzed according to principles of thematic analysis. Results: The discussions in the interviews concerned three broad themes: an emphasis on patients' best interest, perceived as hindered by two sets of barriers; unsatisfactory organizational conditions such as time pressure, lack of referral routines, and few arenas for interdisciplinary collaboration, was perceived as one barrier. The other barrier was related to the appraisal of other HCPs' clinical practices. Participating HCPs expressed in general a positive self-view, but were more critical of other HCPs. Conclusion: Currently, implementation of measures to improve care for patients with advanced cancer appears to be challenging due to cultural and organizational factors, and how HCPs perceive themselves and other HCPs. HCPs' perception of challenges in patient care as not related to themselves (externalization) might be an essential obstacle. Interventions targeting both HCP-related and organizational factors are needed. Particularly important are measures aimed at reducing fragmentation and improving collaboration in care.

SUBMITTER: Lundeby T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in developing machine learning models that use electronic health record data to predict patients' risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. However, whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice remain unknown. To ultimately make automated suicide risk-prediction models useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders, including the frontline providers who will be using such tools, at each stage of the implementation process.ObjectiveThe aim of this focus group study is to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk-prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals are to better understand hospital providers' current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers' perspectives on using automated suicide risk-prediction models in practice; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider.MethodsWe conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by 2 independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies were resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff.ResultsAlthough most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers' general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk-prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the health care system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider training. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings.ConclusionsProviders were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and were open to the use of a machine learning-based risk-prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of these new approaches in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.

Project description:BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is becoming increasingly important in medical care. Some suggest standardized approaches to initiate ACP with all older adults. However, the idea of patient-centered care suggests more nuanced approaches tailored to individual older adults' needs. This study investigated how older adults with different views and needs about ACP can be approached in an adequate and most beneficial way by health care professionals.MethodsWe used questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and informal conversations with older adults, living in their own homes, who volunteered to take part in our research. The research was participatory as we collaborated closely with practice partners and we used the obtained findings immediately and continuously to inform the next steps of our research throughout the process.ResultsWe identified three subgroups of older adults with differential needs regarding ACP-related activities: The first group avoids talking about their needs and wishes for care towards the end of life. These older people benefit from activities, which aim at motivating them to concern themselves with ACP-related topics. The second group consists of older adults who are in principle open for ACP-conversations but do not initiate these themselves. This group either trusts their next-of-kin or their healthcare professional to act in accordance with their wishes or does not bring up the topic in order to avoid confronting relevant others with possibly unpleasant topics. This group of people benefits from information about ACP and from healthcare professionals initiating the ACP process. The third group of older people initiates the ACP process themselves, gathers information, and takes the necessary steps for ACP. With this group it remains relevant to check carefully whether they have indeed taken all relevant steps and shared the information with all relevant involved care institutions and relatives.ConclusionsWe propose a model to simplify adjustments of ACP to individuals' needs. Our suggested approach might contribute to increasing the motivation of older people to engage in ACP conversations if these are more closely related to their own needs. Further, it might also contribute to simplifying the individual shaping of the ACP process for healthcare professionals as our suggested model offers clear guidance for approaching different types of older people in different ways. The suggested approach may in future be used for training health care professionals in the conduct of ACP conversations.

Dataset Information

Challenges and Learning Needs for Providers of Advanced Cancer Care: Focus Group Interviews with Physicians and Nurses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets