Knowledge Translation in Oncology: The Bumpy Ride From Bench to Bedside

Implementing compassion in pediatric healthcare: A qualitative study of Canadian patients', parents', and healthcare providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Compassion has received significant scholarly attention over the past decade. Research has been largely theoretical, with interventions focused on self-care practices of healthcare providers (HCPs), rather than implementation at a systems level. This study aimed to identify how compassion can be operationalized within pediatric healthcare.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Data was analyzed from a secondary dataset of a larger Straussian grounded theory study of perspectives and experiences of compassion in pediatric healthcare. Patients (n = 33); parents (n = 16); and HCPs (n = 17) were asked specifically how compassion could be implemented within the clinical culture and healthcare system.

RESULTS

66 participants generated an operational model of compassion indicating how compassion could be implemented across the organization and larger healthcare system. The data revealed four themes and associated subthemes: teach and train; recognize and reward; measure and report; and embed compassion across the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving compassion in pediatric healthcare needs to extend beyond the efforts of individual HCPs. Compassion is the responsibility of the entire healthcare system and needs to traverse the patient and family experience. In addition to embedding compassion in policy, procedures, practice, and education, compassion should be considered a performance indicator that is measured and reported.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study provides a preliminary framework for organizational leaders to operationalize compassion across the services, structures, polices, procedures and practices of pediatric healthcare. This includes ongoing compassion training across the organization; assessing compassion, recognizing compassion as a performance indicator, and ensuring that the infrastructure and ancillary services of the organization reflect compassion.

Identifying the gaps in Irish cancer care: Patient, public and providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

The University of Limerick Cancer network (ULCaN) was established in 2019 with funding from the Health Research Institute at the University of Limerick in order to build a network between individuals in academia, primary and secondary care and the general public so that cancer services can be coordinated and more effective. The aim of this paper is to outline our experience of engaging with stakeholders to identify gaps in the cancer journey locally.

METHODS

Four focus group discussions were conducted with patients; their carers; members of the public; and healthcare providers with 2 main aims: 1) to investigate gaps in cancer services; 2) to identify knowledge, attitudes and opportunities available to promote cancer research. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

15 themes within the topics of cancer care, palliation, communication, clinical trials, diet and exercise and public and patient involvement in research and advocacy were identified. These include directing people to reliable information and navigating misinformation and stigma linked with cancer, promoting awareness of clinical trials and palliative care services and improving communication when multiple healthcare providers are involved.

CONCLUSION

The need to make more coherent, efficient and integrated cancer research amongst local stakeholders was evident. Embedding patients and members of the public into ULCaN is an important deliverable for collaborative research.

Addressing the Diagnostic Miscommunication in Pathology

OBJECTIVES

The pathology report serves as a crucial communication tool among a number of stakeholders. It can sometimes be challenging to understand. A communication barrier exists among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients when interpreting the pathology report, leaving both clinicians and patients less empowered when making treatment decisions. Miscommunication can lead to delays in treatment or other costly medical interventions.

METHODS

In this review, we highlight miscommunication in pathology reporting and provide potential solutions to improve communication.

RESULTS

Up to one-third of clinicians do not always understand pathology reports. Several causes of report misinterpretation include the use of pathology-specific jargon, different versions of staging or grading systems, and expressions indicative of uncertainty in the pathologist's report. Active communication has proven to be crucial between the clinician and the pathologist to clarify different aspects of the pathology report. Direct communication between pathologists and patients is evolving, with promising success in proof-of-principle studies. Special attention needs to be paid to avoiding inaccuracy while trying to simplify the pathology report.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for active and adequate communication among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients. Clarity and consistency in reporting, quantifying the level of confidence in diagnosis, and avoiding misnomers are key steps toward improving communications.

Challenges adopting next-generation sequencing in community oncology practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We are in an exhilarating time in which innovations exist to help reduce the impact of cancer for individuals, practitioners and society. Innovative tools in cancer genomics can optimize decision-making concerning appropriate drugs (alone or in combination) to cure or prolong life. The genomic characterization of tumours can also give direction to the development of novel drugs. Next-generation tumour sequencing is increasingly becoming an essential part of clinical decision-making, and, as such, will require appropriate coordination for effective adoption and delivery.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several challenges that will need to be addressed if we are to facilitate cancer genomics as part of routine community oncology practice. Recent research into this novel testing paradigm has demonstrated the barriers are at the individual level, while others are at the institution and societal levels.

SUMMARY

This article, based on the authors' experience in community oncology practice and summary of literature, describes these challenges so strategies can be developed to address these challenges to improve patient outcomes.

Precision medicine in follicular lymphoma: Focus on predictive biomarkers

Current care for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) offers most of them long-term survival. Improving it further will require careful patient selection. This review focuses on predictive biomarkers (ie, those whose outcome correlations depend on the treatment strategy) in FL, because awareness of what patient subsets benefit most or least from each therapy will help in this task. The first part of this review aims to summarize what biomarkers are predictive in FL, the magnitude of the effect and the quality of the evidence. We find predictive biomarkers in the setting of (a) indication of active treatment, (b) front-line induction (use of anthracyline-based regimens, CHOP vs bendamustine, addition of rituximab), (c) post-(front-line)induction (rituximab maintenance, radioimmunotherapy), and (d) relapse (hematopoietic stem cell transplant) and targeted agents. The second part of this review discusses the challenges of precision medicine in FL, including (a) cost, (b) clinical relevance considerations, and (c) difficulties over the broad implementation of biomarkers. We then provide our view on what biomarkers may become used in the next few years. We conclude by underscoring the importance of assessing the potential predictiveness of available biomarkers to improve patient care but also that there is a long road ahead before reaching their broad implementation due to remaining scientific, technological, and economic hurdles.

BRIGHTLIGHT researchers as 'dramaturgs': creating There is a Light from complex research data

BACKGROUND

BRIGHTLIGHT is a national evaluation of cancer services for young people aged 13-24 years in England. It is a mixed methods study with six interlinked studies aiming to answer the question: do specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults add value? http://www.brightlightstudy.com/. Young people have been integral to study development and management, working as co-researchers, consultants and collaborators throughout. We aimed to share results in a way that was meaningful to young people, the public, and multidisciplinary professionals. This paper reports the development of 'There is a Light: BRIGHTLIGHT', a theatrical interpretation of study results by young people, and offers insight into the impact on the cast, researchers and audiences.

METHODS

The BRIGHTLIGHT team collaborated with Contact Young Company, a youth theatre group in Manchester. Twenty members of Contact Young Company and four young people with cancer worked together over an eight-week period during which BRIGHTLIGHT results were shared along with explanations of cancer, healthcare policy and models of care in interactive workshops. Through their interpretation, the cast developed the script for the performance. The impact of the process and performance on the cast was evaluated through video diaries. The research team completed reflective diaries and audiences completed a survey.

RESULTS

'There is a Light' contained five acts and lasted just over an hour. It played 11 performances in six cities in the United Kingdom, to approximately 1377 people. After nine performances, a 30-min talk-back between members of the cast, creative team, an expert healthcare professional, and the audience was conducted, which was attended by at least half the audience. Analysis of cast diaries identified six themes: initial anxieties; personal development; connections; cancer in young people; personal impact; interacting with professionals. The cast developed strong trusting relationships with the team. Professionals stated they felt part of the process rather than sitting on the periphery sharing results. Both professional and lay audiences described the performance as meaningful and understandable. Feedback was particularly positive from those who had experienced cancer themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Using theatre to present research enabled BRIGHTLIGHT results to be accessible to a larger, more diverse audience.