Search

Objectives: In the current study, we aimed to explore the experiences and attitudes among healthcare professionals as they transitioned from their familiar disciplines to respiratory medicine, intensive care or other departments during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Background: In preparation for the increasing number of patients suspected of having or who would be severely ill from COVID‐19, a major reconstruction of the Danish Healthcare System was initiated. The capacity of the healthcare system to respond to the unprecedented situation was dependent on healthcare professionals' willingness and ability to engage in these new circumstances. For some, this may have resulted in uncertainty, anxiety and fear. Design: The study was a descriptive study using semi‐structured focus group interviews. Healthcare professionals (n = 62) from seven departments were included, and 11 focus group interviews were conducted. The focus group interviews took place during June 2020. Analyses was conducted using thematic analysis. The current study was reported using the consolidated criteria for reporting Qualitative research (COREQ). Results: Healthcare professionals experiences was described by five themes: 1) Voluntary involvement, 2) Changes within the organisation, 3) Risks, 4) Professional identity and 5) Personal investment. Common to all five themes was the feeling of being on a pendulum from a meaningful experience to an experience of mental overload, when situations and decisions no longer seemed to be worthwhile. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals experienced a pendulum between a meaningful experience and one of mental overload during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The swinging was conditioned by the prevailing context and was unavoidable. Relevance to clinical practice. To balance the continuous pendulum swing, leaders must consider involvement, and to be supportive and appreciative in their leader style. This is consistent with a person‐centred leadership that facilitates a well‐adjusted work‐life balance and may help prevent mental overload developing into burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Eir version 3 (V3) is an electronic tool for administration of patient-reported outcome measures (Eir-Patient) that immediately presents patient scores on the physician's computer (Eir-Doctor). Perceived usability is an important determinant for successful implementation. The aim of this study was to answer the following research question evaluated at the cancer outpatient clinics, in the patients' home, and at general practitioners' (GPs) offices: What are the number, type, and severity of usability issues evaluated by the patient (Eir-Patient module) and by the physician (Eir-Doctor module)? Methods: A usability evaluation using observations, think-aloud sessions, individual interviews and focus group interviews in cancer patients and their physicians was conducted. Identified usability issues were graded on a severity scale from 1 (irritant) to 4 (unusable). Results: Overall, 73 Eir registrations were performed by 37 patients, and used by 17 physicians in clinical consultations. All patients were able to complete the Eir-Patient symptom registration. Seventy-two usability issues were identified. None of them were graded as unusable. For the Eir-Patient module, 62% of the identified usability issues was graded as irritant (grade 1), 18% as moderate (grade 2), and 20% as severe (grade 3). For the Eir-Doctor module, 46% of the identified usability issues were graded as irritant, 36% as moderate and 18% as severe. Conclusions: In the updated Eir version, issues in the severe and moderate categories have been changed, to optimize the usability of using real-time PROMs in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: PROMs can help healthcare professionals gain an improved understanding of patients' physical burdens, functional levels, and (health-related) quality of life throughout disease and medical treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and potential opportunities PROMs may present in a haematological outpatient clinic from three different perspectives: patients, nurses and haematologists. Methods: The present study synthesizes three previously published studies that separately explored the experiences of patients, nurses and haematologists when implementing PROMs. The studies were all guided by the qualitative methodology Interpretive Description, including a focused ethnographic approach, to develop implications for future practice. Results: The overall themes that emerged from the analysis were "Structural similarities influence the adoption of PROMs" and "Different perspectives on the potential of PROMs." Conclusion: Across the different user groups in the haematological outpatient clinic, the use of PROMs was thwarted due to an unquestioned commitment to biomedical knowledge and the system's rationality and norms: PROM data was not used in patient consultations. Nurses and haematologists expressed different preferences related to potential future PROMs and different objectives for PROMs in clinical practice. From the different perspectives of the patients, nurses and haematologists, PROMs were not compatible with clinical practice. Further research is recommended to develop PROMs validated for use in haematological outpatient clinics. Moreover, implementation strategies adjusted to the structural barriers of the system are crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Eir version 3 (V3) is an electronic tool for administration of patient-reported outcome measures (Eir-Patient) that immediately presents patient scores on the physician's computer (Eir-Doctor). Perceived usability is an important determinant for successful implementation. The aim of this study was to answer the following research question evaluated at the cancer outpatient clinics, in the patients' home, and at general practitioners' (GPs) offices: What are the number, type, and severity of usability issues evaluated by the patient (Eir-Patient module) and by the physician (Eir-Doctor module)?Methods: A usability evaluation using observations, think-aloud sessions, individual interviews and focus group interviews in cancer patients and their physicians was conducted. Identified usability issues were graded on a severity scale from 1 (irritant) to 4 (unusable).Results: Overall, 73 Eir registrations were performed by 37 patients, and used by 17 physicians in clinical consultations. All patients were able to complete the Eir-Patient symptom registration. Seventy-two usability issues were identified. None of them were graded as unusable. For the Eir-Patient module, 62% of the identified usability issues was graded as irritant (grade 1), 18% as moderate (grade 2), and 20% as severe (grade 3). For the Eir-Doctor module, 46% of the identified usability issues were graded as irritant, 36% as moderate and 18% as severe.Conclusions: In the updated Eir version, issues in the severe and moderate categories have been changed, to optimize the usability of using real-time PROMs in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]