Search

This paper reports finding from a nested qualitative study designed to elicit the views and perceptions of those who participated in a randomised controlled feasibility trial testing a non-pharmacological intervention, Respiratory Distress Symptom Intervention (RDSI), for the management of the breathlessness-cough-fatigue symptom cluster in lung cancer. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 lung cancer patients, three caregivers and seven researchers involved in recruitment, consent, RDSI training and delivery and participant follow-up. Thematic analysis identified key considerations including: the importance of informed consent emphasising commitment to completion of paperwork and raising awareness of potential sensitivities relating to content of questionnaires; ensuring screening for the presence of symptoms reflects the language used by patients; appreciation of the commitment required from participants to learn intervention techniques and embed them as part of everyday life; conduct of interviews with patients who decline to participate; and conduct of serial interviews with those receiving RDSI to further inform its routine implementation into clinical practice. This study will inform the development of a fully powered follow-on trial testing the hypothesis that RDSI plus usual care is superior to usual care alone in the effective management of this symptom cluster in lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: To explore the longitudinal experiences using an application named remote home care for remote palliative care among patients with cancer living at home. Background: Introducing welfare technology in home‐based care for patients with cancer in the palliative phase is internationally suggested as a measure to remotely support palliative care needs. However, little is known about the experiences of patients utilising welfare technology applications to receive home‐based care from healthcare professionals in a community care context. Although living with cancer in the palliative phase often presents rapidly changing ailments, emotions and challenges with patients' needs changing accordingly, no studies exploring the longitudinal experiences of patients were found. Design: A qualitative study with a longitudinal, exploratory design. Methods: Data were collected through individual interviews with 11 patients over 16 weeks. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The COREQ checklist guided the reporting of the study. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) potential to facilitate self‐governance of life‐limiting illness in daily life, (2) need for interpersonal relationships and connections, and (3) experiences of increased responsibility and unclear utility of the Remote Home Care. Conclusion: The results showed that remote home care facilitated patients' daily routines, symptom control and improved illness‐management at home. Interpersonal relationships with healthcare professionals were considered pivotal for satisfactory follow‐up. Infrastructural glitches regarding data access, information sharing and lack of continuous adjustments of the application represented major challenges, with the potential to impose a burden on patients with cancer in the palliative phase. Relevance to Clinical Practice: By exploring the experiences of patients in palliative care over time as the disease progresses, this study provides constructive insights for the design and development of welfare technology applications and optimal care strategies. Patient or Public Contribution: The remote home care was developed by interdisciplinary healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care physicians (General Practitioners (GPs)) play a pivotal role in providing end of life care (EoLC). However, many lack confidence in this area, and the quality of EoLC by GPs can be problematic. Evidence regarding educational needs, learning preferences and the acceptability of evaluation methods is needed to inform the development and testing of EoLC education. This study therefore aimed to explore GPs' EoLC educational needs and preferences for learning and evaluation. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was conducted with qualified GPs and GP trainees in the UK. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically. Expert review of the coding frame and dual coding of transcripts maximised rigour. Results: Twenty-eight GPs (10 fully qualified, 18 trainees) participated in five focus groups. Four major themes emerged: (1) why education is needed, (2) perceived educational needs, (3) learning preferences, and (4) evaluation preferences. EoLC was perceived as emotionally and clinically challenging. Educational needs included: identifying patients for palliative care; responsibilities and teamwork; out-of-hours care; having difficult conversations; symptom management; non-malignant conditions; and paediatric palliative care. Participants preferred learning through experience, working alongside specialist palliative care staff, and discussion of real cases, to didactic methods and e-learning. 360° appraisals and behavioural assessment using videoing or simulated interactions were considered problematic. Self-assessment questionnaires and patient and family outcome measures were acceptable, if used and interpreted correctly. Conclusions: GPs require education and support in EoLC, particularly the management of complex clinical care and counselling. GPs value mentoring, peer-support, and experiential learning alongside EoLC specialists over formal training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]