The Behavioural Display of Compassion in Radiation Therapy: Purpose, Meaning and Interpretation

But what does it mean to us? Radiographic patients and carer perceptions of compassion

INTRODUCTION

An increased focus on compassion was one of the recommendations in the Francis Report following an inquiry into failures of care at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust in 2010. Responses to the Francis report did not take up the question of what compassion meant and how its recommendations might be meaningfully implemented in radiography practice. As part of two wider doctoral research studies, the findings presented in this paper reveal patients and carers perspectives of how compassionate care is experienced, based on an exploration of their experiences, views and attitudes in order to better understand its meaning and application in radiographic practice.

METHODS

A constructivist approach was taken with appropriate ethical approval. Using a combination of interviews, focus groups, co-production workshops and online discussion forums the authors explored the experiences and opinions of patients and carers about compassion in radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The thematically mapped findings are presented under four sub-themes: The values of caring vs the 'business' values of the NHS, Person-centred care, Characteristics of the radiographer and Compassion in the radiographer-patient interaction.

CONCLUSION

Looking at compassion through a patient's lens has highlighted how person-centred care consists of components not attributable to radiographers alone. The personal values of a radiographer must not only align with those of the profession they seek to join, but the value placed on compassion must also be reflected in the environment in which they practice. Alignment signifies patients are part of a compassionate culture.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Equal emphasis should be placed on both technical and caring practices in order to stop the profession being perceived as target-driven, rather than one which ensures patients are at the heart of practice.

Compassion in healthcare: an updated scoping review of the literature

Background

A previous review on compassion in healthcare (1988-2014) identified several empirical studies and their limitations. Given the large influx and the disparate nature of the topic within the healthcare literature over the past 5 years, the objective of this study was to provide an update to our original scoping review to provide a current and comprehensive map of the literature to guide future research and to identify gaps and limitations that remain unaddressed.

Methods

Eight electronic databases along with the grey literature were searched to identify empirical studies published between 2015 and 2020. Of focus were studies that aimed to explore compassion within the clinical setting, or interventions or educational programs for improving compassion, sampling clinicians and/or patient populations. Following title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-text articles, and performed data extraction. Utilizing a narrative synthesis approach, data were mapped onto the categories, themes, and subthemes that were identified in the original review. Newly identified categories were discussed among the team until consensus was achieved.

Results

Of the 14,166 number of records identified, 5263 remained after removal of duplicates, and 50 articles were included in the final review. Studies were predominantly conducted in the UK and were qualitative in design. In contrast to the original review, a larger number of studies sampled solely patients (n = 12), and the remainder focused on clinicians (n = 27) or a mix of clinicians and other (e.g. patients and/or family members) (n = 11). Forty-six studies explored perspectives on the nature of compassion or compassionate behaviours, traversing six themes: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Four studies reported on the category of educational or clinical interventions, a notable decrease compared to the 10 studies identified in the original review.

Conclusions

Since the original scoping review on compassion in healthcare, while a greater number of studies incorporated patient perspectives, clinical or educational interventions appeared to be limited. More efficacious and evidence-based interventions or training programs tailored towards improving compassion for patients in healthcare is required.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-00942-3.

Exploring invisibility and epistemic injustice in Long Covid-A citizen science qualitative analysis of patient stories from an online Covid community

Background

In 2020, the long‐lasting effects of the Covid‐19 virus were not included in public messages of risks to public health. Long Covid emerged as a novel and enigmatic illness with a serious and life‐changing impact. Long Covid is poorly explained by objective medical tests, leading to widespread disbelief and stigma associated with the condition. The aim of this organic research is to explore the physical and epistemic challenges of living with Long Covid.

Methods

Unlike any previous pandemic in history, online Covid communities and ‘citizen science’ have played a leading role in advancing our understanding of Long Covid. As patient‐led research of this grassroots Covid community, a team approach to thematic analysis was undertaken of 66 patient stories submitted online to covid19‐recovery.org at the beginning of the Covid‐19 pandemic between April and September 2020.

Results

The overriding theme of the analysis highlights the complexities and challenges of living with Long Covid. Our distinct themes were identified: the life‐changing impact of the condition, the importance of validation and how, for many, seeking alternatives was felt to be their only option.

Conclusions

Long Covid does not easily fit into the dominant evidence‐based practice and the biomedical model of health, which rely on objective indicators of the disease process. Patient testimonies are vital to understanding and treating Long Covid, yet patients are frequently disbelieved, and their testimonies are not taken seriously leading to stigma and epistemic injustice, which introduces a lack of trust into the therapeutic relationship.

Patient Contribution

The research was undertaken in partnership with our consumer representative(s) and all findings and subsequent recommendations have been coproduced.