Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is highly prevalent and impacts profoundly on patients' quality of life, leading to a range of supportive care needs.

METHODS

An updated systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative data using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, to explore prostate cancer patients' experience of, and need for, supportive care. Five databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Emcare and ASSIA) were searched; extracted data were synthesised using Corbin and Strauss's 'Three Lines of Work' framework.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2091 citations, of which 105 were included. Overarching themes emerged under the headings of illness, everyday life and biographical work. Illness work needs include consistency and continuity of information, tailored to ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Biographical work focused on a desire to preserve identity in the context of damaging sexual side effects. Everyday life needs centred around exercise and diet support and supportive relationships with partners and peers. Work-related issues were highlighted specifically by younger patients, whereas gay and bisexual men emphasised a lack of specialised support.

CONCLUSION

While demonstrating some overarching needs common to most patients with prostate cancer, this review offers novel insight into the unique experiences and needs of men of different demographic backgrounds, which will enable clinicians to deliver individually tailored supportive care.

Identification and referral of patients with refractory epilepsy from the primary to the tertiary care interface in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVES

This mixed-method feasibility study conducted in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, aimed to explore clinical practices around the identification of patients with refractory epilepsy and referral from primary care to Tertiary Epilepsy Centers. The perceptions of general practitioners, neurologists, and adults living with refractory epilepsy were considered.

METHODS

Fifty-two data collection events were achieved through 22 semi-structured interviews with six neurologists and 12 adults who currently have, or have had refractory epilepsy, and four family members, 10 clinical observations of patient consultations and 20 surveys with general practitioners. A thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data alongside assessment of observational fieldnotes and survey data.

FINDINGS

Two main themes emerged: 1) Patient healthcare pathways and care experiences highlighted the complex and deeply contextualized experiences of both patients and healthcare professionals, from first identification of people's seizures, in primary and community care settings, to referral to Tertiary Epilepsy Centers, shedding light on a fragmented, nonstandardized referral process, influenced by both individual and shared-care practices. 2) Factors impacting referrals and patient pathways indicated that onward referral to a Tertiary Epilepsy Center is affected by the knowledge, or the lack thereof, of healthcare professionals regarding treatment options. Barriers include limited person-centered care, shared decision-making, and refractory epilepsy education for healthcare professionals, which can delay patients' disease identification and can hinder speedy referral pathways and processes, in Australia for up to 17 years. In addition, person-centered communication around care pathways is affected by relationships between clinicians, patients, and family members.

CONCLUSION

This study has identified a noticeable lack of standardized care across epilepsy-related healthcare sectors, which recognizes a need for developing and implementing clearer epilepsy-related guidelines and Continuing Professional Development in the primary and community care settings. This, however, requires greater collaboration and commitment in the primary, community, and tertiary care sectors to address the ongoing misconceptions around professional roles and responsibilities to optimize shared-care practices. Ultimately, prioritizing person-centered care on both patients' and professionals' agendas, in order to improve satisfaction with care experiences of people living with complex epilepsy.

Adults' cochlear implant journeys through care: a qualitative study

Background

Cochlear implants (CIs) can provide a sound sensation for those with severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), benefitting speech understanding and quality of life. Nevertheless, rates of implantation remain low, and limited research investigates journeys from traditional hearing aids to implantable devices.

Method

Fifty-five adults (≥ 50 years), hearing aid users and/or CI users, General Practitioners, and Australian and United Kingdom audiologists took part in a multi-methods study. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys were thematically analysed.

Results

One hundred forty-three data-capture events disclosed 2 themes: 1) “The burden of hearing loss and the impact of Cochlear Implants”, and 2) “Professional Support and Practice, and HCPs Roles and Responsibilities”.

Conclusions

Care experience can include convoluted, complex journeys towards cochlear implantation. The significant impact of this, as hearing loss progresses, motivates people to consider implants, but they and healthcare professionals need clear supported with defined referral pathways, and less system complexity.

A mobile methods pilot study of surgical spaces: 'fit for purpose? Organisational productivity and workforce wellbeing in workspaces in hospital' (FLOURISH)

Background

Good workspace design is key to the quality of work, safety, and wellbeing for workers, yet we lack vital knowledge about optimal hospital design to meet healthcare workforce needs. This study used novel mobile methods to examine the concept of Work-as-Done and the effect of workspace-use on healthcare professional practice, productivity, health and safety in an Australian university hospital.

Methods

This pilot study took place in one gastroenterological surgical unit between 2018 and 2019. Data collection involved 50 h of observations and informal conversations, followed by interpretation of five architectural plans and 45 photographs. Fieldnotes were thematically analysed and corroborated by analysis of visual data using a predefined taxonomy.

Results

Six themes were identified, revealing spaces that both support and hinder Work-as-Done. Fit-for-purpose spaces facilitated effective communication between staff, patients and families, conferred relative comfort and privacy, and supported effective teamwork. Unfit-for-purpose spaces were characterised by disruptions to work practices, disharmony among team members, and physical discomfort for staff. Staff employed workarounds to manage unfit-for-purpose spaces.

Conclusion

The results identified negative impacts of negotiating unfit-for-purpose workspaces on the work and wellbeing of staff. While the use of workarounds and adaptations enable staff to maintain everyday working practices, they can also lead to unexpected consequences. Results indicated the need to identify and support fit-for-purpose spaces and minimize the detrimental qualities of unfit-for-purpose spaces. This study showed that mobile methods were suitable for examining Work-as-Done in a fast-moving, adaptive hospital setting.

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Objectives

Men diagnosed with low‐risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.

Method

Participants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi‐method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.

Results

Thirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of “Making sense of risk”, “Talking about risk” and “Responding to risk”.

Conclusion

Effective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient‐centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.