Search

Aim: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are a critical element of quality care for people diagnosed with cancer. The MDM Chairperson plays a significant role in facilitating these meetings, which are often time-poor environments for clinical decision making. This study examines the perceptions of MDM Chairpersons including their role and the factors that determine the quality of a Chair, as well as the Chairperson's perception of the value of personally attending meetings. Methods: This qualitative study used telephone interviews to explore the experiences of MDM Chairpersons from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Using a state-wide register, 43 clinicians who chaired lung, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer meetings were approached to participate. Thematic data analysis was used to develop and organise themes. Results: Themes from the 16 interviews identified the perceived need for an expert and efficient MDM Chairperson with emphasis on personal rather than technical skills. The remaining themes related to the benefits of meetings to ensure quality and consistency of care; improve inter-professional relationships; and provide communication with and reassurance for patients. Conclusion: The role of the MDM Chairperson requires expert management and leadership skills to ensure meetings support quality patient-centred care. MDMs are perceived to provide multiple benefits to both clinicians and patients. Efforts to train Chairs and to maximise clinician and patient benefits may be warranted given the costly and time-consuming nature of MDMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only 2–3% of cancer patients enrol in a trial. We surveyed patients' willingness to change clinician or treating centre, or to travel, to participate in trials, to improve trial recruitment. Of 188 respondents, 79% were willing to participate in a trial in at least one scenario. Increasing travel time, change in oncologist, private health insurance and out of pocket expenses decreased likelihood of joining a trial. Rural and regional patients, and those from lower socio‐economic areas, were more willing to travel. To optimise access to trials, clinicians should refer within and between institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The perceptions of those called on to make decisions on behalf of patients who lack capacity at the end of life must accurately reflect patient preferences. Aims To establish the extent to which the views of medical oncology outpatients are understood by their support persons, specifically with regards to (i) preferred type and location of end-of-life care, (ii) preferred level of involvement in end-of-life decision-making and (iii) whether the patient has completed an advance care plan or appointed an enduring guardian. Methods Adults with a confirmed cancer diagnosis and their nominated support persons were approached between September 2015 and January 2016 in the waiting room of an Australian tertiary referral clinic. Consenting participants completed a pen-and-paper survey. Nominated support persons answered the same questions from the patient's perspective. Results In total, 208 participants (39% of eligible dyads) participated. Observed agreement across the five outcomes ranged from 54% to 84%. Kappa values for concordance between patient-support person responses were fair to moderate (0.24-0.47) for enduring guardian, decision-making, advance care plan and care location outcomes. A slight level of concordance ( k = 0.15; 95% confidence interval: −0.02, 0.32) was found for the type of care outcome. Conclusion Relying on support persons' views does not guarantee that patients' actual preferences will be followed. Strategies that make patient preferences known to healthcare providers and support persons while they still have the capacity to do so is a critical next step in improving quality cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is evidence to suggest that decision aids improve a number of patient outcomes. However, little is known about the progression of research effort in this area over time. This literature review examined the volume of research published in 2000, 2007 and 2014 which tested the effectiveness of decision aids in improving cancer patient outcomes, coded by cancer site and decision type being targeted. These numbers were compared with the volume of research examining the effectiveness of strategies to increase the adoption of decision aids by healthcare providers.Methods: A literature review of intervention studies was undertaken. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The search was limited to human studies published in English, French, or German. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 20 % checked by a second. Eligible intervention studies in the three time periods were categorised by: i) whether they tested the effectiveness of decision aids, coded by cancer site and decision type, and ii) whether they tested strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.Results: Over the three time points assessed, increasing research effort has been directed towards testing the effectiveness of decision aids in improving patient outcomes (p < 0.0001). The number of studies on decision aids for cancer screening or prevention increased statistically significantly (p < 0.0001) whereas the number of studies on cancer treatment did not (p = 1.00). The majority of studies examined the effectiveness of decision aids for prostate (n = 10), breast (n = 9) or colon cancer (n = 7). Only two studies assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.Conclusions: While the number of studies testing the effectiveness of decision aids has increased, the majority of research has focused on screening and prevention decision aids for only a few cancer sites. This neglects a number of cancer populations, as well as other areas of cancer care such as treatment decisions. Also, given the apparent effectiveness of decision aids, more effort needs to be made to implement this evidence into meaningful benefits for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cancer patients and their support persons commonly feel overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. We used a DCE to examine patients' and support persons' preferences for: (i) attending one 40 min consultation or two 20 min consultations when making a cancer treatment decision; and for (ii) receiving additional information in written form only or in both written and online forms. Here we focus on support persons' preferences and whether they differ from patients' preferences. Results: 159 adult medical oncology patients and 64 of their support persons took part in this study. Participants were presented with a set of hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred scenario. 92% of support persons (n = 59) completed the DCE. Most preferred to receive two consultations along with written and online information (n = 30, 51%). This was the only scenario that was chosen by statistically significantly more support persons (p =0.037). The proportions of patients and support persons choosing each scenario did not differ significantly from each other (p >0.05). Our findings suggest that when making cancer treatment decisions, clinicians should consider offering patients and support persons written and online information, combined with two shorter consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]