The Patients' Perspective: Hematological Cancer Patients' Experiences of Adverse Events as Part of Care

Cancer nurses' perspective of error disclosure from nurses to patients: A qualitative descriptive study

PURPOSE

This study aims at exploring Cancer Nurses' Perspective of Error Disclosure.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted in 2022, Iran. Data collection methods included observation (121 h), and semi-structured interviews (12 interviews with nurses, and nursing managers). Data analysis was performed using Graneheim and Lundman's approach. This study obtained ethical approval from Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The COREQ checklist was used for study report.

RESULTS

Data analysis resulted in three categories and nine subcategories: Error disclosure as a professional necessity (error disclosure as one of the patient's rights and error disclosure for self-and peer-learning), Error disclosure barriers (cancer-related factors, individual deterrents, nurses' intragroup culture, and organizational deterrents) and Error disclosure facilitators (culture of transparency, managerial support for error disclosure and development of error disclosure protocol).

CONCLUSION

Creating a culture of error disclosure requires removing barriers, and providing facilitators. By reevaluating their professional performance and responsibilities, nurses may help foster a culture of error disclosure, and managers can do the same by encouraging employees and creating a clinical error disclosure manual. The promotion of an error disclosure to the patient culture may be greatly aided by managers. They facilitate this role by providing practical guidance (based on Iranian culture, needs and conditions of cancer patients and their families) to address nurses' concerns about managers' and the organization's negative responses.

A practical example of an open disclosure process for people with intellectual disabilities in the Republic of Ireland

Literature pertaining to open disclosure predominantly refers to acute care settings; this is the case in, for example, the UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, Korea and the USA. There is, however, a dearth of literature regarding open disclosure related to people with intellectual disabilities. A practice example of open disclosure is presented here, following a serious adverse event in an organisation supporting adults with intellectual disabilities. The aim of the process was to openly disclose in a meaningful way to adults with significant intellectual disabilities and communication difficulties. An apology pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary team based on individual communication needs. A suite of resources was developed including easy read-picture agendas and sign language to support increased understanding of the apology. Service users received the apology first, followed by meetings with their families. This practice example has positive implications for service providers for people with intellectual disabilities.

Are the Physical Environments of Treatment Centres Meeting Recommendations for Patient-Centred Care? Perceptions of Haematological Cancer Patients

The physical environment of a treatment centre may impact the well-being of patients and their perceptions of care. Outpatients with haematological cancer may be in contact with the treatment centre over long periods and could be particularly affected. This study aimed to identify haematological cancer patients' perceptions of supportive design elements in the hospital they attended and associations with self-reported mood or well-being. Outpatients from three large metropolitan hospitals in Australia were mailed a self-report questionnaire and responded to statements about the treatment centre concerning their sense of control over the physical surroundings; access to social support; and access to positive distractions. Participants also reported whether they felt the overall environment affected their mood or wellbeing. Of the outpatients who returned the questionnaire (n = 165), almost one-quarter (24%) agreed that the physical environment of the hospital affected their mood or well-being. Patients who disagreed that the hospital was a comfortable temperature or agreed that waiting rooms were crowded had significantly higher odds of reporting that the treatment environment affected their mood or wellbeing. Implementing systems to reduce overcrowding in waiting rooms and increasing patient control over personal temperature in clinics may be the most effective strategies to improve patient wellbeing.

Brain cancer patient and support persons' experiences of psychosocial care: a mapping of research outputs

BACKGROUND

People with brain cancer and their support persons (SPs) are critical sources of information on the components of care that contribute to psychosocial outcomes.

AIMS

To determine the proportion of studies that examined (1) at least one of 14 nominated components of psychosocial cancer care and (2) more than one component of care.

METHODS

Medline, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Embase were electronically searched for publications from January 1999 to December 2019. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were coded according to the number and type of psychosocial care components assessed from 14 listed components, and whether patient and/or SPs' views about care were elicited.

RESULTS

Of the 113 included publications, 61 publications included patient-reported data only (54%), 27 included both patient and SP-reported data (24%) and 25 included SP-reported data only (22%). Most assessed a single component of care (77% of patient-reported and 71% of SP-reported). No publications assessed all 14 components. The "Psychosocial" component was the most frequently assessed component of care for patient-reported (n = 80/88, 91%) and SP-reported publications (n = 46/52, 88%).

CONCLUSIONS

Publications reporting on psychosocial care in brain cancer present a relatively narrow view of patient and support person experiences. The inclusion of both patient and support person perspectives and the assessment of multiple components of care are required in future research to optimize psychosocial outcomes in brain cancer.

Nurses perspectives on healthcare errors in oncology care: A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Recognition and responses of the health system to healthcare errors are key areas for improvement in oncology. Despite their role in direct patient care, nurses' perceptions of errors have rarely been explored. The aim of this study was to determine oncology nurses' direct experience of healthcare errors in the previous six months; the circumstances surrounding the error; and ensuing actions by the healthcare system.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of nurses who were members of an oncology nursing society and/or registered or enrolled nurses employed in an oncology setting. Participants indicated whether they had direct experience (i.e. direct involvement or witnessing) of error(s) in the previous six months. Those who experienced an error indicated their perceptions of the: cause; location and phase of care; how the error was identified, who was responsible, level of harm and action(s) taken.

RESULTS

67% (n = 65/97) of nurses who completed the survey had direct experience with at least one error in the previous six months. According to these nurses, most occurred during treatment (n = 48, 74%), happened in outpatient clinics (n = 28, 43%) and were related to chemotherapy (n = 15, 23%). Nurses perceived errors were primarily caused by nurses (n = 36, 55%) and doctors (n = 27, 42%); and 54% (n = 35) were deemed 'near-miss'. Nurses perceived errors were recorded (n = 40, 62%), explained to patients (n = 33, 51%) and an apology provided (n = 32, 49%).

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of oncology nurses in this study had direct experience with an error in the previous six months. Nurses perceived response to errors as inconsistent with open disclosure standards. Strategies to improve accuracy of measures of error and response of the health system, including adherence to open disclosure processes, are required.

The Patient Perspective on Errors in Cancer Care: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore medical oncology outpatients' perceived experiences of errors in their cancer care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted. English-speaking medical oncology outpatients aged 18 years or older were recruited from 9 Australian cancer treatment centers. Participants completed 2 paper-and-pencil questionnaires: an initial survey on demographic, disease and treatment characteristics upon recruitment; and a second survey on their experiences of errors in cancer care 1 month later.

RESULTS

A total of 1818 patients (80%) consented to participate, and of these, 1136 (62%) completed both surveys. One hundred forty-eight participants (13%) perceived that an error had been made in their care, of which one third (n = 46) reported that the error was associated with severe harm. Of those who perceived an error had been made, less than half reported that they had received an explanation for the error (n = 65, 45%) and only one third reported receiving an apology (n = 50, 35%) or being told that steps had been taken to prevent the error from reoccurring (n = 52, 36%). Patients with university or vocational level education (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6 [1.09-2.45], P = 0.0174) and those who received radiotherapy (OR = 1.72 [1.16-2.57]; P = 0.0076) or "other" treatments (OR = 3.23 [1.08-9.63]; P = 0.0356) were significantly more likely to report an error in care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant scope to improve communication with patients and appropriate responses by the healthcare system after a perceived error in cancer care.

The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE): a cross-sectional study examining feasibility and acceptability

BACKGROUND

Continuous quality improvement in cancer care relies on the collection of accurate data on the quality of care provided. It is suggested that such an approach should: (i) measure the patient's care experience throughout the cancer trajectory; (ii) use items and response scales that measure concrete and specific aspects of care; (iii) minimise recall bias; (iv) minimise the burden placed on patients for providing data; (v) minimise administrative burden; and (vi) collect actionable data. The System for Patient Assessment of Cancer Experiences (SPACE) was developed to meet these objectives. This study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the SPACE in a sample of oncology outpatients.

METHODS

The SPACE was examined in four medical oncology centres. Adult patients were approached by a research assistant prior to their scheduled consultation. Consenting participants completed the SPACE on a computer tablet. Items were tailored to the patient's cancer treatment phase.

RESULTS

Of the eligible participants, 1143 consented (83%) and 1056 completed the survey (92%). The average time taken to complete the survey was 6 min 28 s. A large proportion of the sample indicated that the survey was acceptable (88-93% across three acceptability items).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the SPACE can be feasibly administered each time a patient comes to the oncology unit and is acceptable to patients. The SPACE could be used to quantify the care experiences which patients receive during their cancer care. The resulting data could be used to set benchmarks and improve the performance of cancer clinics.

Assessing patients' experiences of cancer care across the treatment pathway: a mapping review of recent psychosocial cancer care publications

PURPOSE

Patients are a critical source of information about the quality of the components of cancer care that contributes to optimal psychosocial outcomes. Recently published research was examined to determine the: (1) proportion of studies that examined at least one of 14 components of cancer care, (2) the proportion of studies that included multiple components of care, and (3) the phase of the cancer care pathway in which data collection occurred (i.e. pre-, during and post-treatment).

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched to retrieve all data-based publications indexed for two international psychosocial cancer care journals (Supportive Care in Cancer and Psycho-Oncology) over a 2-year period. A total of 333 publications yielded 214 eligible publications that were assessed against the 14 components of care for which measurement by healthcare providers at multiple phases during cancer care is recommended. Publications were coded based on the: (1) specific component/s of care focused upon in the research, (2) number of components examined and (3) timing of data collection.

RESULTS

The most frequently assessed component of care was physical and psychosocial screening (n = 198, 93%). Most studies (n = 187, 87%) examined a single component of care. No studies assessed all 14 components. Only seven studies (2.1%) examined components of care across multiple phases of the care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently published studies have examined limited segments of patients' experiences of cancer care. To improve psychosocial outcomes among people living with and beyond cancer, there should be a greater focus on patients' experiences across multiple components and the whole care pathway.