Dataset Information

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals to determine what they believe constitutes 'specialist' care for teenage and young adult patients with cancer.

ABSTRACT: To examine the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards what they believe constitutes specialist care for teenage and young adult (TYA) patients with cancer, to determine which factors they considered to be the most important components of specialist TYA care, and whether opinion varied between clinical specialties and reflected the drivers for care improvements within National Health Service (NHS) policy.The study utilised a cross-sectional survey, using Likert scales, to assess attitudes towards specialist care. Responses were grouped using model-based clustering methods implemented in LatentGold 4.5.Participants from 98 NHS trusts in the UK were invited to participate in the study.691 healthcare professionals involved in the management of TYA patients were approached; of these, 338 responded.338 healthcare professionals responded (51.9% of those invited). Responses were grouped into three clusters according to the pattern of responses to the questions. One cluster rated age-appropriate care above all else, the second rated both age and site-appropriate care highly while the third assigned more importance to site-specific care. Overall, the psychosocial and supportive aspects of care were rated highest while statements relating to factors known to be important (access to clinical trials, treatment at a high volume centre and specialist diagnostics) were not rated as highly as expected.Attitudes varied widely between professionals treating TYA patients with cancer as to what constitutes key aspects of specialist care. Further work is needed to quantify the extent to which this influences practice.

SUBMITTER: Birch RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3646178 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals to determine what they believe constitutes 'specialist' care for teenage and young adult patients with cancer.

Birch Rebecca J RJ Morris Eva J A EJ West Robert M RM Stark Dan P DP Lewis Ian I Morgan Sue S Feltbower Richard G RG

BMJ open 20130502 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards what they believe constitutes specialist care for teenage and young adult (TYA) patients with cancer, to determine which factors they considered to be the most important components of specialist TYA care, and whether opinion varied between clinical specialties and reflected the drivers for care improvements within National Health Service (NHS) policy.<h4>Design and methods</h4>The study utilised a cross-sectional ...[more]

PMID: 23645913

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting.MethodsA cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis.ResultsAt least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8-20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7-55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0-59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9-63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator.ConclusionInner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study based on data from 5?years (2008-2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:20?103 adults aged 17-65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18?533). OUTCOME MEASURE:Prevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ?30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population. RESULTS:Obesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95%?CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%,?95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%,?95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46,?95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94,?95% CI 0.74 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS:High obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frail individuals are at risk of significant clinical deterioration if their frailty is not identified and managed appropriately. Research suggests that any interaction between an older person and a health or social care professional should include an assessment for frailty. Many older care home residents are frail when admitted, but we have little knowledge of whether or how this is assessed. The aim of this paper is to understand and establish the characteristics of the reported 'assessments for frailty' used in care homes with nursing (nursing homes) across North-West London. This will help understand what an 'assessment for frailty' of care home residents mean in practice in North-West London. METHODS:Telephone contact was made with every Care Quality Commission (CQC) (independent regulator of health and adult social care in England) regulated nursing home across North-West London [n = 87]. An online survey was sent to all that expressed interest [n = 73]. The survey was developed through conversations with healthcare professionals, based on literature and tested with academics and clinicians. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS:24/73 nursing homes completed the survey (33%). Differences in the characteristics of reported 'assessments for frailty' across nursing homes were evident. Variation in high level domains assessed (physical, social, mental and environmental) was observed. Nurses were the most common professional group completing assessments for frailty, with documentation and storage being predominantly paper based. A statistically significant difference between the number of assessments used in corporate chain owned nursing homes (3.9) versus independently owned nursing homes (2.1) was observed (U = 21, p = .005). CONCLUSIONS:Great variation existed in the characteristics of reported 'assessments for frailty' in nursing homes. Our study suggests that not all physical, social, mental and environmental domains of frailty are routinely assessed: it appears that frailty is still primarily viewed only in terms of physical health. The consequences of this could be severe for patients, staff and healthcare settings. Research illustrates that frailty is a broad, multifactorial health state and, as such, an overall 'assessment for frailty' should reflect this.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To establish healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views about clinical roles, and the barriers and enablers to delivery of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). DESIGN:Cross-sectional, postal and online survey. SETTING:Trusts within the National Health Service, mental health and diabetes charities, and professional bodies. PARTICIPANTS:HCPs who care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or SMI in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The barriers, enablers and experiences of delivering T2DM care for people with SMI, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS:Respondents were 273 HCPs, primarily mental health nurses (33.7%) and psychiatrists (32.2%). Only 25% of respondents had received training in managing T2DM in people with SMI. Univariate analysis found that mental health professionals felt responsible for significantly fewer recommended diabetes care standards than physical health professionals (P<0.001). For those seeing diabetes care as part of their role, the significant barriers to its delivery in the multiple regression analyses were a lack of knowledge (P=0.003); a need for training in communication and negotiation skills (P=0.04); a lack of optimism about the health of their clients (P=0.04) and their ability to manage T2DM in people with SMI (P=0.003); the threat of being disciplined (P=0.02); fear of working with people with a mental health condition (P=0.01); a lack of service user engagement (P=0.006); and a need for incentives (P=0.04). The significant enablers were an understanding of the need to tailor treatments (P=0.04) and goals (P=0.02) for people with SMI. CONCLUSIONS:This survey indicates that despite current guidelines, diabetes care in mental health settings remains peripheral. Even when diabetes care is perceived as part of an HCP's role, various individual and organisational barriers to delivering recommended T2DM care standards to people with SMI are experienced.

Dataset Information

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals to determine what they believe constitutes 'specialist' care for teenage and young adult patients with cancer.

Publications

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals to determine what they believe constitutes 'specialist' care for teenage and young adult patients with cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets