Search

ABSTRACT Introduction Aim Method Results Discussion Implications The lack of evidence of mental health patients' perception on patient participation in multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) is a potential threat to the person‐centeredness of care.To explore the perceptions of mental health patients regarding patient participation in MTMs and to identify factors associated with these perceptions.In a cross‐sectional study, 127 former and 109 currently admitted mental health patients completed the Patient Participation during Team Meetings Questionnaire (PaPaT‐Q). The STROBE‐checklist was used for reporting the study.Overall, patients' perceptions were positive. Former patients expressed greater willingness to participate in MTMs, considered participation as more important, and felt more competent. These patients also exhibited a stronger preference for an autonomous role in medical decision making when participating in MTMs. The perception varied across factors such as gender, educational level, nature of psychological complaints and prior experience(s) with participation in MTMs.These findings may help mental healthcare professionals to become more aware to factors associated with mental health patients' perception of patient participation in MTMs.The results can be used by mental healthcare professionals to motivate mental health patients in an even more tailor‐made basis to participate in MTMs when admitted in a hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: In the Collaborative Network To Take Responsibility for Oral Anticancer Therapy (CONTACT) project, an evidence‐based and patient‐centred care(PCC) pathway was implemented in 12 oncology departments in Flanders. The care pathway was developed in cocreation by an interdisciplinary project team, and tailored to the local hospital context. Aims and Objectives: In this study, the impact of the care pathways on quality of PCC and other patient outcomes was investigated. Method: A pre−posttest study was performed in nine of the participating oncology departments. The primary outcome was quality of PCC. Furthermore, level of patient self‐management, medication adherence, satisfaction with information about the oral anticancer drug and quality of life were measured as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were used to investigate differences in outcomes between the pre‐ and posttest group. Results: Quality of PCC, as well as all secondary outcomes improved after implementation of the care pathway. However, the changes in pre‐ and posttest scores were not significant. The overall quality of PCC increased from 3.72 to 3.88, measured on a five‐point Likert scale (p = 0.124). Conclusion: This study showed small, however, no significant improvements in the quality of PCC and other patient outcomes. The lack of significant changes can be attributed to the complexity of the care pathway development, poor or unstable implementation of the care pathway and limited changes in follow‐up care. More insight in the actual implementation of the care pathway and potential contextual factors influencing its effect is needed to help understand the outcomes of this pre−posttest study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interprofessional communication is crucial for patient care, yet there is a dearth of comprehensive assessment tools essential to train and assess healthcare students. While the Interprofessional Educational Collaborative framework (IPEC) outlines eight sub-competencies, it lacks detailed behavioral indicators. This study aimed to create a repository of interprofessional communication behaviors to complement the IPEC sub-competencies. From 12,448 articles, 55 were selected and thematically analyzed with NVivo18®. We identified 230 interprofessional communication behaviors, organized into 10 themes and 61 sub-themes, aligning with the IPEC sub-competencies. This comprehensive repository could be foundational for developing interprofessional communication assessment tools in healthcare education and aiding healthcare institutions in improving interprofessional communication practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: (1) To identify, evaluate and summarize evidence about the objectives and characteristics of mentoring programmes for specialized nurses (SNs) or nurse navigators (NNs) and advanced practice nurses (APNs) and (2) to identify the effectiveness of these programmes. Design: A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines. Data Sources: From November 2022 until 7 December 2022, four databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Review Methods: Study selection was performed independently by two researchers. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Data extraction was undertaken for included studies. Data synthesis was conducted using narrative analysis. Quality appraisal was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: Twelve articles were included, all of which focused on mentoring programmes for APNs. Different forms of mentorship (e.g. (in)formal mentorship, work shadowing, workshops) were reported. Studies reported positive outcomes on job retention (n = 5), job satisfaction (n = 6), skills improvement (n = 7), satisfaction with the programme (n = 7) and confidence improvement (n = 4) among participants of mentoring programmes. Conclusion: There is a lack of uniformity and consistency in various elements of mentoring programmes. Further research is needed to develop mentoring programmes for both APNs and SNs/NNs in a systematic and theoretically underpinned manner. It is necessary to establish a thorough evaluation methodology, preferably using a mixed methods design that includes both a qualitative process evaluation and a comprehensive outcome evaluation using validated questionnaires, taking into account the NN/APN, the interprofessional team and organizational level. Impact: The synthesis of evidence may be useful to organizations developing and implementing mentoring programmes for both SN/NN and APN. The development of a mentoring programme for nursing experts should be considered a complex intervention that requires theoretical frameworks and contextual considerations. No Patient or Public Contribution: Not applicable, as no patients or public were involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]