Search

Aim: To review the evidence of how nurse and pharmacist roles have been incorporated into the management of patients undergoing systemic anti‐cancer therapy (SACT) services and their impact on patient experience and care provision. Design: Systematic Review. Data Sources: Seven databases were searched on 10 April 2022. Review Methods: Research studies that met defined inclusion criteria were included. Quantitative findings were converted into textual descriptions and combined with qualitative results for thematic analysis. Data were categorized and aggregated into themes. Heterogeneity of studies meant meta‐analysis was not possible. Results: Fifteen papers were included. Three main themes were identified: advanced clinical practice (ACP) SACT service development; ACP skills and qualifications; and the impact of ACP SACT services on patient care and outcomes. There is a variation in tasks undertaken by nurses and pharmacists and role integration is restricted by limited physician engagement. Role titles used and skills and qualifications acquired differ and professional autonomy is variable. Qualitative studies were limited. Conclusion: Evidence of how nursing and pharmacist ACP roles are implemented, what skills are essential and how roles are impacting patient experience and outcomes is limited. More research is required to explore patient and physician experience of, and satisfaction with multi‐professional care, alongside further evaluation of clinical delivery models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patients’ experiences have become central to assessing the performance of healthcare systems worldwide and are increasingly being used to inform quality improvement processes. This paper explores the relative value of surveys and detailed patient narratives in identifying priorities for improving breast cancer services as part of a quality improvement process. Methods One dataset was collected using a narrative interview approach, (n = 13) and the other using a postal survey (n = 82). Datasets were analyzed separately and then compared to determine whether similar priorities for improving patient experiences were identified. Results There were both similarities and differences in the improvement priorities arising from each approach. Day surgery was specifically identified as a priority in the narrative dataset but included in the survey recommendations only as part of a broader priority around improving inpatient experience. Both datasets identified appointment systems, patients spending enough time with staff, information about treatment and side effects and more information at the end of treatment as priorities. The specific priorities identified by the narrative interviews commonly related to ‘relational’ aspects of patient experience. Those identified by the survey typically related to more ‘functional’ aspects and were not always sufficiently detailed to identify specific improvement actions. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that whilst local survey data may act as a screening tool to identify potential problems within the breast cancer service, they do not always provide sufficient detail of what to do to improve that service. These findings may have wider applicability in other services. We recommend using an initial preliminary survey, with better use of survey open comments, followed by an in-depth qualitative analysis to help deliver improvements to relational and functional aspects of patient experience.

Objectives: Walking is an adaptable, inexpensive and accessible form of physical activity. However, its impact on quality of life (QoL) and symptom severity in people with advanced cancer is unknown. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a community-based walking intervention to enhance QoL in people with recurrent/metastatic cancer. Design: We used a mixed-methods design comprising a 2-centre RCT and nested qualitative interviews. Participants: Patients with advanced breast, prostate, gynaecological or haematological cancers randomised 1:1 between intervention and usual care. Intervention The intervention comprised Macmillan's ‘Move More’ information, a short motivational interview with a recommendation to walk for at least 30 min on alternate days and attend a volunteer-led group walk weekly. Outcomes We assessed feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and RCT by evaluating study processes (rates of recruitment, consent, retention, adherence and adverse events), and using end-of-study questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing QoL, activity, fatigue, mood and self-efficacy were completed at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Results: We recruited 42 (38%) eligible participants. Recruitment was lower than anticipated (goal n=60), the most commonly reported reason being unable to commit to walking groups (n=19). Randomisation procedures worked well with groups evenly matched for age, sex and activity. By week 24, there was a 45% attrition rate. Most PROMs while acceptable were not sensitive to change and did not capture key benefits. Conclusions: The intervention was acceptable, well tolerated and the study design was judged acceptable and feasible. Results are encouraging and demonstrate that exercise was popular and conveyed benefit to participants. Consequently, an effectiveness RCT is warranted, with some modifications to the intervention to include greater tailoring and more appropriate PROMs selected. Trial registration number ISRCTN42072606.