A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework

Interprofessional education in cancer care - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.

METHODS

The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals' self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND

Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level.

RESULTS

A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data.

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities

PURPOSE

The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams in a Regional Cancer Institute: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

OBJECTIVES

Oncology is a rapidly changing clinical setting. Research has shown improved patient outcomes and staff satisfaction following interprofessional collaborative education, but there has been limited research on perceptions of interprofessional collaboration among oncology health care professionals. The aims of this study were to: 1) assess attitudes of health care professionals toward interprofessional teams in oncology care, and 2) assess for differences in attitudes across various demographic and workplace groups.

DATA SOURCES

The research design was an electronic cross-sectional survey. The main instrument utilized was the Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams (ATIHCT) survey. A total of 187 oncology health care professionals from a regional New England cancer institute completed the survey. The ATIHCT mean score was high (M = 4.07, SD = 0.51). Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in mean score among participant age groups (P = .03). Significant differences (P = .01) were also noted between different professional groups and their time constraints sub-scale score on the ATIHCT scale. A higher mean score occurred in participants who had a current certification (M = 4.13, SD = 0.50) compared to those without (M = 4.05, SD = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

High overall scores in attitudes toward health care teams suggest that cancer care settings are primed for interprofessional care model implementation. Future studies should examine strategies to improve attitudes among specific groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are in a position to lead interprofessional teamwork in the clinical setting. Further research is necessary to examine best collaborative models in health care to support interprofessional teamwork.

Dynamics and processes influencing role integration of advanced practice nurses and nurse navigators in oncology teams

PURPOSE

Exploring the persisting presence of underlying processes, dynamics, experienced barriers and facilitators of Advanced Practice Nurses (APN) in oncology and Oncology Nurse Navigators (ONN) during their role integration in an interprofessional team over a research period of seven years.

METHODS

A qualitative study based on the principles of Grounded Theory, in which individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 51 ONN and APN from 11 university and local hospitals in Belgium between 2011-2018. Data were analyzed to develop a framework that consists of different themes.

RESULTS

ONN and APN experienced a lonely journey during role integration. They were searching for partners, medical knowledge and acknowledgement from the interprofessional team. ONN and APN had a watchful attitude and tried to make themselves visible to ensure they were involved in the team and to preserve their role and responsibilities. An unclear role description to the interprofessional team, and a lack of coaching and guidance were influencing factors in the experience of ONN and APN.

CONCLUSION

ONN and APN in oncology feel difficulties to integrate their role in existing interprofessional teams. A lack of role clarity, the interprofessional team environment and a desire for coaching and guidance are influencing factors to implement APN roles. Coaching and mentorship of novice ONN/APN and their interprofessional team and healthcare managers are needed to address these issues. These findings could form the basis for a mentorship program for ONN/APN and their interprofessional team to enhance role integration.

Association between work empowerment and interprofessional collaboration among health care professionals working in cancer care settings

This study aimed to analyze work-related empowerment and interprofessional collaboration and to identify possible associations among healthcare professionals working in cancer care settings. A cross-sectional survey design was employed in this study. Healthcare professionals (n = 175) in one Finnish Cancer Center participating in the care of patients with cancer at least on a monthly basis took part in the study. The data were collected with three instruments: Interprofessional Collaboration and Leadership, Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN), and Work-related Empowerment Promoting Factors (WEP). The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Pearson and Spearman's correlation coefficients and multivariate analysis using generalized liner models. Healthcare professionals rated their work empowerment as rather high. Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN) was perceived as high (mean 4.08, SD 0.47). Promoting factors for Work Empowerment (WEP) were also assessed as high (mean 3.98, SD 0.61). Interprofessional collaboration in the cancer care setting was perceived as moderate (mean 2.94, SD 0.36). Managerial position explained work empowerment based on multivariate analysis. Work empowerment and interprofessional collaboration had a strong correlation. The results can be used in the leadership and management of interprofessional collaboration and in developing new structures to support health professionals' work empowerment. In the future, work empowerment needs to be promoted by constructing solutions and practices that support interprofessional collaboration and thus improve the quality of cancer care.

The Effect of Narrative Nursing Intervention on Shame in Elderly Patients with Bladder Cancer after Ileal Bladder Replacement: A Cohort Study

Background

The standard treatment for bladder cancer (BC) is transurethral resection (TURBt), intravesical chemotherapy, and regular follow-up cystoscopy after surgery. However, some patients experience relapse or progression. Narrative care refers to a nursing model in which nurses put themselves into the patient's position through communication and listening, thereby alleviating the patient's negative emotions. This study analyzed narrative nursing interventions in elderly patients with BC after vesicoileal replacement.

Objective

To explore the positive stimulating effect of narrative nursing intervention on the sense of shame in elderly patients with bladder cancer (BC) after ileal bladder replacement.

Methods

A total of 60 elderly patients with BC who went through ileal replacement of the bladder from February 2019 to April 2021 in our hospital were enrolled. The patients were divided into the control group and the study group by the arbitrary number table method. The former group received routine care, and the latter group received a narrative nursing intervention model. The nursing satisfaction, stigma score, self-care ability score, SAS score, SDS score, and quality of life score were compared.

Results

First, we compared the nursing satisfaction. In the research group, 23 cases were very satisfied, 6 cases were satisfied, and 1 case was normal, and the satisfaction rate was 100.00%. In the control group, 13 cases were very satisfied, 8 cases were satisfied, 4 cases were general, and 5 cases were dissatisfied, with a satisfaction rate of 83.33%. The nursing satisfaction of the research group was significantly higher compared to that of the control group (P < 0.05). Secondly, we compared the stigma scores. The stigma scores of the study group at the time of discharge, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge were lower compared to those of the control group (P < 0.05). In terms of the scores of self-care ability, the total scores of self-concept, self-care responsibility, self-care knowledge, self-care skills, and self-care ability of the research group were higher compared to those of the control group (P < 0.05). With regard to SAS scores, before nursing, there was no significant difference exhibited (P > 0.05). After nursing, the patient's SAS score decreased. Compared with the two groups, the SAS scores of the study group at discharge, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge were all lower (P < 0.05). In terms of SDS score, there was no significant difference before nursing (P > 0.05). After nursing, the SDS scores of patients decreased. Compared between the two groups, the SDS scores of the study group at the time of discharge, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after discharge were lower (P < 0.05). Finally, we compared the life quality scores. Before nursing, there was no significant difference exhibited (P > 0.05). After nursing, the scores of life quality of patients improved. Compared with the two groups, the physical function, psychological function, social function, and healthy self-cognition scores of the research group were all lower compared to those of the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Narrative nursing can reduce anxiety and depression in elderly patients with BC after ileal replacement of the bladder, enhance the quality of life, reduce the patient's stigma, and play a positive motivating role. This nursing model is worthy of promotion in clinic.

Quality indicators for radiation oncology

Quality Indicators, based on clinical practice guidelines, have been used in medicine and within oncology to measure quality of care for over twenty years. However, radiation oncology quality indicators are sparse. This article describes the background to the development of current national and international, general and tumour site‐specific radiation oncology quality indicators in use. We explore challenges and opportunities to expand their routine prospective collection and feedback to help drive improvements in the quality of care received by people undergoing radiation therapy.

Exploring patient experiences of cancer care in Northern Ireland: A thematic analysis of free-text responses to the 2018 Northern Ireland Patient Experience Survey (NICPES)

BACKGROUND

Cancer diagnosis, treatment and survivorship is multifaceted, and the cancer patient experience can serve as a key indicator of healthcare performance and quality. The purpose of this paper was to analyse free-text responses from the second Northern Ireland Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NICPES) in 2018, to understand experiences of care, emerging themes and identify areas for improvement.

METHODS

A 72-item questionnaire (relating to clinical care experience, socio-demographics and 3 free-text questions) was distributed to all Health & Social Care Northern Ireland patients that met the inclusion criteria (≥ 16 years old; confirmed primary diagnosis of cancer and discharged between 1st May and 31st October 2017) in June 2018. Participants could complete the questionnaire online or access a free telephone support line if required. Open-ended free text responses were analysed thematically to identify common themes. Free text responses were divided into positive or negative comments.

RESULTS

In total, 3,748 people responded to the survey, with 2,416 leaving at least one free text comment (69 %). Women aged 55-74 years were most likely to comment. Overall, 3,644 comments were left across the three comments boxes, which were categorised as either positive (2,462 comments; 68 %) or negative / area for improvement (1,182 comments; 32 %). Analysis of free text responses identified six common themes (staff; speed [diagnosis and treatment]; safety; system; support services and specific concerns), which were all related to the overarching theme of survival. Staff was the largest single theme (1,458 responses) with overwhelmingly positive comments (1,322 responses; 91 %), whilst safety (296 negative comments; 70 %) and system (340 negative comments; 81 %) were predominantly negative. Negative comments relating to primary care, aftercare and the cancer system were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The high response rate to the free text comments indicates patients were motivated to engage. Analysis indicates most comments provided were positive in nature. Most survey respondents reported a positive experience in relation to staff. However, there were a number of areas for improvement including the aftercare experience, and a perceived disconnect between primary care and cancer services. These results can help inform the effective delivery of cancer services in Northern Ireland.

A focused ethnography in the context of a European cancer research hospital accreditation program

Background

A quality accreditation program (AP) is designed to guarantee predefined quality standards of healthcare organizations. Evidence of the impact of quality standards remains scarce and somewhat challenging to document. This study aimed to investigate the accreditation of a cancer research hospital (Italy), promoted by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), by focusing on the individual, group, and organizational experiences resulting from the OECI AP.

Methods

A focused ethnography study was carried out to analyze the relevance of participation in the accreditation process. Twenty-nine key informants were involved in four focus group meetings, and twelve semistructured interviews were conducted with professionals and managers. Inductive qualitative content analysis was applied to examine all transcripts.

Results

Four main categories emerged: a) OECI AP as an opportunity to foster diversity within professional roles; b) OECI AP as a possibility for change; c) perceived barriers; and d) OECI AP-solicited expectations.

Conclusions

The accreditation process is an opportunity for improving the quality and variety of care services for cancer patients through promoting an interdisciplinary approach to care provision. Perceiving accreditation as an opportunity is a prerequisite for overcoming the barriers that professionals involved in the process may report. Critical to a positive change is sharing the values and the framework, which are at the basis of accreditation programs. Improving the information-sharing process among managers and professionals may limit the risk of unmet expectations and prevent demotivation by future accreditation programs. Finally, we found that positive changes are more likely to happen when an accreditation process is considered an activity whose results depend on managers’ and professionals’ joint work.

Cancer Care Evaluation Scale (CCES): measuring the quality of the structure and process of cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of the structure and process of cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer, we developed a Cancer Care Evaluation Scale.

METHODS

Two anonymous online surveys of patients with cancer in Japan were conducted using a convenience sample of 400 adult cancer outpatients.

RESULTS

In total, 162 patients participated in the online surveys. Factor analysis revealed that the Cancer Care Evaluation Scale had the following 12 domains: (i) relationship with physician, (ii) relationship with nurse, (iii) physical care by physician, (iv) physical care by nurse, (v) psycho-existential care, (vi) help with decision-making for patients, (vii) coordination and consistency, (viii) environment, (ix) cost, (x) availability, (xi) care for the side effects of cancer treatment by a physician, and (xii) care for the side effects of cancer treatment by a nurse. The Cancer Care Evaluation Scale was correlated with overall care satisfaction (r = 0.75), but not with the quality of life (r = 0.40). In regard to rest-retest reliability, most items showed an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.7 or higher.

CONCLUSION

The validity and reliability of the Cancer Care Evaluation Scale were confirmed, suggesting that this tool is useful for evaluating the quality of cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer.

Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

The decision as to whether or not a patient should receive radiation therapy as part of their cancer treatment is based on evidence‐based practice and on recommended international consensus treatment guidelines. However, the merit of involving the patients' individual preferences and values in the treatment decision is frequently overlooked. Here, we review the current literature pertaining to shared decision‐making (SDM) in the field of radiation oncology, including discussion of the patient's perception of radiation therapy as a treatment option and patient involvement in clinical trials. The merit of decision aids during the SDM process in radiation oncology is considered, as are patient preferences for active or passive involvement in decisions about their treatment. Clarity of terminology, a better understanding of effective strategies and increased resources will be needed to ensure SDM in radiation oncology becomes a reality.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration as perceived by healthcare professionals working in the cancer care setting and to produce knowledge to support the development of collaborative practices.

METHODS

This study employed a descriptive survey design. The data were collected in one Finnish cancer centre between May and October 2018 from nurses, physicians and other healthcare professionals using an electronic survey (n = 350). The survey focused on the pre-requisites of interprofessional collaboration (appreciation and competence) and its realisation in cancer care. The data were analysed using descriptive and interferential statistics.

RESULTS

The pre-requisites of interprofessional collaboration were perceived as good and the collaboration was well realised in the cancer centre. The perceptions of pre-requisites and realisation were associated with each other. Male respondents, physicians and professionals belonging to interprofessional teams had more positive perceptions of the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration than others.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that the pre-requisites of interprofessional collaboration and its realisation seem to be well implemented in the cancer care setting. However, the ongoing evaluation of interprofessional collaboration requires further attention from healthcare administration and professionals to support the systematic development of collaborative practices.