Search

Background: There is documented social inequality in cancer. The health-care system may contribute to health equity by targeting interventions to potentially vulnerable patients who may be at risk of not receiving optimal treatment and care. Aim: This study aimed to develop and pilot test a tool to identify patients who may need additional support. Method: The study took place in a department of palliative medicine and in a team for head and neck cancer within an oncology department. The tool to identify potentially vulnerable patients was developed based on literature reviews and interviews with patients and health-care personnel. It was pilot tested in a six-month period, with subsequent interviews with health-care personnel. Results: In total, 212 consecutive patients referred to the departments were systematically screened with the tool by health-care personnel. Of these, 74 (35%) patients were considered potentially vulnerable. The most frequently reported sign of vulnerability was 'few supportive relations' (47% of the vulnerable patients). Most health-care personnel found it relevant to focus systematically on these patients. However, some were concerned that using the tool could prove to be stigmatising and were critical of attributing the vulnerability to the individual. Conclusions: Most patients were considered in need of additional support because they lacked a social network or had difficulties communicating with health-care personnel. Applying a tool to identify potentially vulnerable patients was feasible and increased attention to this group of patients. However, the screening procedure was also questioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐centred care (PCC) including collaborative practices is the core component of modern health care. Despite this, it has proven difficult to implement. Aims: To examine (1) healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perception of whether they perceive a PCC culture, their attitudes towards involving patients in decisions and their experiences of barriers for PCC; and (2) variables that may contribute to explain differences in perceived person‐centred culture. Methods: A questionnaire survey of HCPs from 27 different departments from two university hospitals in Denmark. HCPs were eligible if they held a profession as physician, Registered Nurse, nurse assistant, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, dietician, midwife or psychologist and excluded if they reported not being involved in patient treatment and care. The questionnaire consisted of four items from the Context Assessment Index (CAI). The remaining items were purpose‐designed. Results: In total 1140 (24% response rate) HCPs completed the questionnaire and were included in the analyses. Most of the HCPs perceived a culture of PCC (e.g. 91% agreed or agreed to a high degree that patients were provided with opportunities to participate in decisions). Most HCPs also held positive attitudes towards involving patients in decisions. Time and prioritisation from the management were perceived as barriers for PCC, and many HCPs also believed that involving patients in decisions could be difficult for the patients. The HCPs who were least involved in treatment and care, and working in the acute setting or in surgery, were least likely to perceive a PCC culture. HCPs with the longest or shortest educations, and HCPs working primarily with outpatients or with planned inpatients, were most likely to perceive a person‐centred culture. Conclusion: The HCPs generally perceived a culture of PCC and held positive attitudes towards involving patients in decisions. To further promote PCC, time and prioritisation must be invested at an organisational level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ACTION trial evaluated the effect of a modified version of the Respecting Choices´ advance care planning programme in patients with advanced cancer in six European countries. For this purpose, an advance directive acceptable for all six ACTION countries to be used for documenting the wishes and preferences of patients and as a communication tool between patients, their caregivers and healthcare staff, was needed. Aim: To describe the development of a multinational cancer specific advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, which was first based on the 2005 Wisconsin 'Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment´ Form, to be used within the ACTION trial. Methods: Framework analysis of all textual data produced by members of the international project team during the development of the ACTION advance directives (e.g. drafts, emails, meeting minutes...). Setting/participants: ACTION consortium members (N = 28) with input from clinicians from participating hospitals (N = 13) and ´facilitators´ (N = 8) who were going to deliver the intervention. Results: Ten versions of the ACTION advance directive, the ´My Preferences form´, were developed and circulated within the ACTION consortium. Extensive modifications took place; removal, addition, modification of themes and modification of clinical to lay terminology. The result was a thematically comprehensive advance directive to be used as a communication tool across the six European countries within the ACTION trial. Conclusion: This article shows the complex task of developing an advance directive suitable for cancer patients from six European countries; a process which required the resolution of several cross cultural differences in law, ethics, philosophy and practice. Our hope is that this paper can contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of advance directives, their role in supporting decision making among patients approaching the end of life and be an inspiration to others wishing to develop a disease-specific advance directive or a standardised multinational advance directive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]