Rapport between Cancer Patients and Their Physicians is Critical for Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Decisions

The meaning of rapport for patients, families, and healthcare professionals: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Rapport is considered fundamental to clinical relationships but is a concept which is rarely defined. This review explores how rapport is defined, characterised, and operationalised in healthcare.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used. Data were synthesised using thematic analysis. The review process adhered to the Preferred Reporting System for Meta-Analysis for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

Medline, CINAHL, and psychINFO were searched with thirty-four studies meeting inclusion criteria. Results were presented in two themes: The meanings of rapport and the implications for building rapport.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review found rapport has no commonly shared definition or conceptualisation in the reviewed research. At the same time rapport is operationalised and characterised. Factors that facilitate, and hinder rapport-building were identified. Having a consistently used definition and conceptualisation will benefit the research that is needed into patient and family experiences and outcomes of rapport.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is crucial for health professionals to incorporate simple kind gestures into practice to facilitate rapport. Equally it is necessary for health professionals to review their practice for dismissive, avoiding behaviours that impede rapport-building and consider how they spend their time with patients.

In Limbo: Seven Families' Experiences of Encounter with Cancer Care in Norway

INTRODUCTION

Like many other countries, Norway has seen a shift from inpatient to outpatient cancer care, with pathways aimed at improving the integration and coordination of health services. This study explores the perspectives of seven patients and their family members in light of this change. We focus on one particular phase of the pathway: the first encounter. Our interviews were set in the period from referral until the start of treatment.

METHODS

Nineteen individual in-depth interviews were conducted in seven families. Seven patients with cancer and 12 family members were interviewed.

RESULTS

Three categories of experiences stood out in the empirical material: 'Being in between different health professionals', 'Overwhelmed by written and oral information' and 'Lack of involvement'.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into families' experiences with cancer care from referral until the start of treatment. Our findings indicate that families often experience cancer care as fragmented and confusing. Although evaluations have shown that the introduction of cancer pathways seems to have a positive effect on waiting times and standardization of examinations across hospitals and regions, there is still potential for improvement in coordination between services, family involvement, and emotional and practical support. We argue that our findings highlight the tension between two ideals of professional care: standardization and patient-centredness. The study illustrates shortcomings in translating the ideal of patient-centredness into professional practice.

Evaluation of a Tool that Enables Cancer Patients to Participate in the Decision-Making Process during Treatment Selection

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in decisions related to their treatment is strongly recommended. This study was conducted to develop and evaluate a support tool that can help patients make decisions related to their own treatment.

METHODS

Twenty cancer patients who were hospitalized for first-line treatment were enrolled. Before hospitalization, a 'Check sheet on treatment selection', which contained 14 questions, was distributed to patients and/or their families. After hospitalization, the attending physician explained the treatment while referring to the written check sheet. At discharge, patients' responses to the 'Questionnaire on check sheet and treatment selection' were collected to evaluate the utility of the check sheet. Finally, the 'Questionnaire of the check sheet' was handed to the attending physician to evaluate.

RESULTS

Of the fourteen patients who responded to the questionnaire, all indicated that the check sheets were helpful for decision-making and that using the sheets empowered them to ask their doctors questions. Only one person felt uncomfortable with compiling the check sheet. Physicians stated that the check sheet facilitated patient decision-making and improved communication with patients. However, some felt that this activity increased the administrative burden of medical professionals.

CONCLUSION

Almost all patients stated that the present check sheet was useful as a decision support tool and facilitated communication between doctors and patients. Before incorporation into general clinical practice, this increased benefit should be weighed against the potential extra administrative workload imposed on clinicians.

Patients with Metastatic Lung Cancer and Oncologists' Views on Achievement of Treatment Goals and Making the Right Treatment Decision: A Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated patients' treatment goals before starting a treatment for metastatic lung cancer. Data on the evaluation of treatment goals are lacking.

AIM

To determine if patients with metastatic lung cancer and their oncologists perceive the treatment goals they defined at the start of systemic treatment as achieved after treatment and if in hindsight they believe it was the right decision to start systemic therapy.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective multicenter study in 6 hospitals across the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018. Following systemic treatment, 146 patients with metastatic lung cancer and 23 oncologists completed a questionnaire on the achievement of their treatment goals and whether they made the right treatment decision. Additional interviews with 15 patients and 5 oncologists were conducted.

RESULTS

According to patients and oncologists, treatment goals were achieved in 30% and 37% for 'quality of life,' 49% and 41% for 'life prolongation,' 26% and 44% for 'decrease in tumor size,' and 44% for 'cure', respectively. Most patients and oncologists, in hindsight, felt they had made the right decision to start treatment even if they had not achieved their goals (72% and 93%). This was related to the feeling that they had to do 'something.'

CONCLUSIONS

Before deciding on treatment, the treatment options, including their benefits and side effects, and the goals patients have should be discussed. It is key that these discussions include not only systemic treatment but also palliative care as effective options for doing 'something.'