Search

Objectives: This study explored the decision-making experiences of patients and their partners or primary caregiver who opted for experimental active surveillance (instead of standard surgery) for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods: Seventeen couples participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted on couples’ joint experiences as well as their individual experiences. Preferred and perceived role in the treatment decision-making process was assessed using the adjusted version of the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived influence on the treatment decision was measured using a visual analog scale. Results: Couples reflected on the decision-making process as a positive collaboration, where patients retain their autonomy by making the final decision, and partners offer emotional support. Couples reported about an overwhelming amount and sometimes conflicting information about treatments among different hospitals and healthcare providers. Conclusions: Patients often involve their partner in decision-making, which they report to have enhanced their ability to cope with the disease. The amount and sometimes conflicting information during the decision-making process provide opportunities for improvement. Practice implications: Couples can benefit from an overview of what they can expect during treatment course. If active surveillance becomes an established treatment option in the future, provision of such overviews and consistent information should become more streamlined.

Purpose: Clear information and supportive care are necessary for patients with cancer to effectively manage their condition. Traditionally, healthcare professionals offer information and support via the so-called formal care route. In addition, research has found favorable effects of informal care provided by volunteer programs and informal “walk-in support centers.” Less research has been done on initiatives that combine formal and complementary informal supportive care for patients with cancer. This systematic literature study aimed to discover (1) which types of initiatives are described in the literature, (2) what type of care they offer, and (3). how they are evaluated in terms of outcome measures. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the collaboration between one type of formal care together with one type of informal care was explicitly mentioned in the article. The search was not restricted to a specific cancer type. Results: A total of 4869 records were retrieved and 18 studies were included. In most studies, the care provided consisted of emotional support for, and/or providing information to, patients and their families. Initiatives were evaluated with interviews and questionnaires. Patients with cancer reported that they were satisfied with the care offered, including information, social and emotional support, help with activities of daily living, and family-related issues. Volunteers reported that visits they made were experienced positive and rewarding and the volunteers were confident about their contribution to general healthcare. Some negative experiences were reported by volunteers, e.g., interference of their own cancer diagnosis with volunteer work. The importance of proper training was stressed. Conclusions: Initiatives combining formal and informal supportive care hold the potential of added value in terms of providing emotional support for, and providing infor

Research has shown that a home-based educational intervention for patients with chronic kidney disease results in better knowledge and communication, and more living donor kidney transplantations (LDKT). Implementation research in the field of renal care is almost nonexistent. The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate generalizability, (2) evaluate the implementation process, and (3) to assess the relationship of intervention effects on LDKT-activity. Eight hospitals participated in the project. Patients eligible for all kidney replacement therapies (KRT) were invited to participate. Effect outcomes were KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication, and treatment choice. Feasibility, fidelity, and intervention costs were assessed as part of the process evaluation. Three hundred and thirty-two patients completed the intervention. There was a significant increase in KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication among participants. One hundred and twenty-nine out of 332 patients (39%) had LDKT-activity, which was in line with the results of the clinical trials. Protocol adherence, knowledge, and age were correlated with LDKT-activity. This unique implementation study shows that the results in practice are comparable to the previous trials, and show that the intervention can be implemented, while maintaining quality. Results from the project resulted in the uptake of the intervention in standard care. We urge other countries to investigate the uptake of the intervention.

Objective One of the spearheads of psychiatric healthcare in the Netherlands is hospital care for patients with a psychiatric comorbidity. In 2014, the Netherlands Psychiatric Association published ten field standards for Medical Psychiatric Units (MPUs). We catalogued healthcare in the Netherlands on the basis of these field standards. Design Telephone screening, followed by a questionnaire investigation. Method In the period MayAugust 2015, psychiatrists in 90 hospitals in the Netherlands were approached by telephone with 4 screening questions. If the department complied with the screening criteria for an MPU, a structured interview comprising 51 questions followed. The interview script was tested against the field standards using the Delphi method. Results The screening identified 40 potential MPUs; 37 (92.5%) wards participated in the complete interview. MPU care is unevenly distributed across the country. None of the MPUs complied with all field standards, even if the score on subcriteria concerning care content was relatively good. The main shortcomings were: lack of care facilities (predominantly somatic care facilities); no availability of continuous somatic nursing expertise; insufficient knowledge among somatic medical specialists of psychiatric care needs and lack of care chain arrangements. Conclusion MPUs are unevenly distributed across the country; care content is adequate, but education, tighter multidisciplinary cooperation and availability of somatic nursing expertise on every shift could improve care on MPUs. The departments should also pay more attention to care chain arrangements. The field standards are too stringent; these could be improved by defining 'essential care' and application of differentiated assessment of subcriteria.