Search

BackgroundPatients require information to make informed decisions and consent to medical treatment. Shared decision making (SDM) is a methodology that promotes a patient-centred approach to informed consent and demonstrates respect for autonomyPurposeThe purpose of this paper is to critically review the legal and ethical issues relevant to Canadian and UK informed consent and SDM practices and how these processes relate to current palliative care practices, with a particular emphasis on radiation therapy.MethodologyA review of the English literature from 2003 to 2013 was performed using the databases PubMed (NML), OVID Medline and Google Scholar.Results and ConclusionsThe literature identifies that palliative cancer patients desire the opportunity to be involved with decision-making discussions, which has shown to increase knowledge and result in better health-related outcomes. However, ethical and legal issues regarding the practicality of including this patient population in SDM discussions raises questions about validity of consent. For SDM to be considered a valid methodology to obtain informed consent, open and honest communication between the patient and multidisciplinary team is essential. Treatment options for palliative cancer patients are often complex and SDM allows healthcare professionals and patients to exchange information and negotiate feasible treatment options based on medical expertise and patient preferences.Legal frameworks have defined current standards of practice for various healthcare professions, including radiation therapy. Radiation therapists, as members of the multidisciplinary team, are currently key contributors in providing information to patients regarding the radiotherapy process. Individuals working within advanced practice roles have the ability to develop skills once considered to be within medical domains and have begun to incorporate the delegated act of obtaining informed consent into practice which has shown to increase professional autonomy, accountability and improves patient-centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A serious patient safety incident at a cancer centre in Ontario, Canada, saw a patient fall from an elevated treatment couch. A regional investigation recommended the use of a securing safety strap. The authors evaluate the value of the strap through the experiences of the radiation therapists' who use it. A secondary aim is to explore the potential for using a securing safety strap with UK therapeutic radiographers., Methods: A two-stage design was guided by an evidence-based practice framework. Stage one used a questionnaire to capture treating radiation therapists' experiences and opinions of the strap at a single cancer centre. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and free-text data via a content analysis. Stage two used semistructured interviews with thematic analysis to explore views of three UK therapeutic radiographers., Results: Twenty-five of approximately 130 eligible staff responded to the Canadian questionnaire. Of the respondents, 24% (n = 6) 'strongly disagreed', 28% (n = 7) 'agreed' and 48% (n = 12) 'neither agreed nor disagreed' that they would recommend the strap to other departments. Most of the respondents think strap use should be at the staffs' discretion, with patients with dementia/cognitive impairment ranked as the group benefiting most. Ninety-two percent (n = 23) of respondents confirmed that patients sometimes refuse the strap. Themes arising from stage two interviews are as follows: patient benefit (use for select patients only); patient safety versus control (restraint); and practical implementation issues., Conclusion: The policy of universal use of the strap should be reviewed. Those who use it are equivocal about its value and feel it should be reserved for select patients at the treating professional's discretion. Full evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of the device for different patients may promote both staff enthusiasm towards the device and evidence-based practice. Adequate resources are required to evaluate implementation of such safety initiatives., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)