Search

Background: Uncertainty has been associated with distress and poorer quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Prior studies have focused on prognostic uncertainty; little is known about other types of uncertainty that patients and family members experience when discussing goals of care. Understanding the types of uncertainty expressed and differences between Black and White patients can inform the development of uncertainty management interventions. Methods: This study sought to characterize the types of uncertainty expressed by Black and White patients and family members within the context of information needs during inpatient goals-of-care discussions. We performed a secondary analysis of transcripts from 62 recorded goals-of-care discussions that occurred between 2012 and 2014 at an urban, academic medical center in the United States. We applied an adapted taxonomy of uncertainty to data coded as describing information needs and used an inductive qualitative analysis method to analyze the discussions. We report the types of uncertainty expressed in these discussions. Results: Fifty discussions included patient or family expressions of information needs. Of these, 40 discussions (n=16 Black and n=24 White) included statements of uncertainty. Black and White patients and families most frequently expressed uncertainty related to processes and structures of care (system-centered uncertainty) and to treatment (scientific uncertainty). Statements of prognostic uncertainty focused on quantitative information among Whites and on qualitative information and expectations for the future among Blacks. Conclusions: Black and White patients and families frequently expressed system-centered uncertainty, suggesting this may be an important target for intervention. Addressing other sources of uncertainty, such as prognostic uncertainty, may need more tailored approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests improvement in nursing staff satisfaction, competence, and retention after implementation of evidence-based mentorship programmes. When guided by a framework of compassion, mentoring as a caring action can not only build healthy, transformative relationships but a similar behavior is reciprocated to patients which subsequently can drive patient experience of care. However, examples of on-job mentorship programs for nurses in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are limited. Objective: The objective of the study was to develop an on-job nursing mentorship programme using a compassionate framework aimed at improving nurses' experience and thus enhancing patient experience in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Methods: Designed as an intervention development study, it was completed between January 2018–December 2019. The programme was developed by a team composed of service and nursing leadership, director patient experience of care and a compassion specialist using a theory of change model. The package followed a series of steps, a) identification of a framework, b) creation of working group c) needs assessment and d) multiple meetings to frame the model followed by implementing the preconditions for roll-out of the programme with the frontline staff. Results: The eventual outcome was improving the patient's experience of compassion while the intermediate outcome was to have nurses demonstrate compassionate care. The pre-conditions were identified as: recruitment of staff with appropriate skills for pediatric care, provision of compassionate experience to the frontline nurses by addressing their specific pain points, development of competent head nurses as supervisors and creation of a compassionate culture. To ensure the pre-conditions, various interventions were planned with some implemented through the course of the study while others are in the process of being rolled out. These involved, inclusion of pediatric compassion specific module during orientation of new hires, creation of space to talk about compassionate skills with staff, provision of trainings and mentorship to create competent head nurses, and creating a culture that promoted and recognized compassionate care values. Conclusion: The approach helped to delineate feasible pathways for an on-job compassionate mentorship programme enhancing routine supervisors' role as facilitators of compassionate care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Agenda setting is associated with more efficient care and better patient experience. This study develops a taxonomy of visit opening styles to assess use of agenda and non-agenda setting visit openings and their effects on participant experience. Methods: This observational study analyzed 83 video recorded US primary care visits at a single academic medical center in California involving family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (n = 49) and patients (n = 83) with chronic pain on opioids. Using conversation analysis, we developed a coding scheme that assessed the presence of agenda setting, distinct visit opening styles, and the number of total topics, major topics, surprise patient topics, and returns to prior topics discussed. Exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of agenda setting and visit opening styles with post-visit measures of both patient experience and physician perception of visit difficulty. Results: We identified 2 visit opening styles representing agenda setting (agenda eliciting, agenda reframing) and 3 non-agenda setting opening styles (open-ended question, patient launch, physician launch). Agenda setting was only performed in 11% of visits and was associated with fewer surprise patient topics than visits without agenda setting (mean (SD) 2.67 (1.66) versus 4.28 (3.23), p = 0.03). Conclusions: In this study of patients with chronic pain, resident physicians rarely performed agenda setting, whether defined in terms of "agenda eliciting" or "agenda re-framing." Agenda setting was associated with fewer surprise topics. Understanding the communication context and outcomes of agenda setting may inform better use of this communication tool in primary care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]