Pathway redesign: putting patients ahead of professionals

Lived experience of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive disorders are major causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, affecting ∼10% pregnancies worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the lived experience of women with hypertensive disorders during pregnancy is important to inform best practice and provide holistic care.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic review and meta-synthesis of studies containing qualitative components relating to direct lived experience of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via Ebsco, PsycINFO via Ebsco, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and ASSIA via ProQuest were searched between database inception and June 2024. Quality assessment was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research. Themes were labeled and organized into a framework using NVivo software.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included in the meta-synthesis. Anxiety, stress, fear and panic emerged as the most common emotional experiences during hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Loss of control was also mentioned frequently and consistently across studies (frequency effect size 38.9% and intensity effect size 15.3%). Emotional responses to physical symptoms or lack thereof, and feelings about the impact of the complicated pregnancy on family and community also emerged as central themes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

A range of emotional experiences was captured across the studies included in our meta-synthesis, some of which were observed across global settings whereas others were context-dependent. Interventions and care pathways for pregnancies affected by hypertensive disorders should aim to support women through complex emotional experiences as well as reducing morbidity and mortality.

The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis

BACKGROUND

The WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development.

METHODS

In a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities.

RESULTS

We identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement.

CONCLUSION

These discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.

Codesign of health technology interventions to support best-practice perioperative care and surgical waitlist management

OBJECTIVES

This project aimed to determine where health technology can support best-practice perioperative care for patients waiting for surgery.

METHODS

An exploratory codesign process used personas and journey mapping in three interprofessional workshops to identify key challenges in perioperative care across four health districts in Sydney, Australia. Through participatory methodology, the research inquiry directly involved perioperative clinicians. In three facilitated workshops, clinician and patient participants codesigned potential digital interventions to support perioperative pathways. Workshop output was coded and thematically analysed, using design principles.

RESULTS

Codesign workshops, involving 51 participants, were conducted October to November 2022. Participants designed seven patient personas, with consumer representatives confirming acceptability and diversity. Interprofessional team members and consumers mapped key clinical moments, feelings and barriers for each persona during a hypothetical perioperative journey. Six key themes were identified: 'preventative care', 'personalised care', 'integrated communication', 'shared decision-making', 'care transitions' and 'partnership'. Twenty potential solutions were proposed, with top priorities a digital dashboard and virtual care coordination.

DISCUSSION

Our findings emphasise the importance of interprofessional collaboration, patient and family engagement and supporting health technology infrastructure. Through user-based codesign, participants identified potential opportunities where health technology could improve system efficiencies and enhance care quality for patients waiting for surgical procedures. The codesign approach embedded users in the development of locally-driven, contextually oriented policies to address current perioperative service challenges, such as prolonged waiting times and care fragmentation.

CONCLUSION

Health technology innovation provides opportunities to improve perioperative care and integrate clinical information. Future research will prototype priority solutions for further implementation and evaluation.

Preparing for and Not Waiting for Surgery

Cancer surgery is an essential treatment strategy but can disrupt patients' physical and psychological health. With worldwide demand for surgery expected to increase, this review aims to raise awareness of this global public health concern, present a stepwise framework for preoperative risk evaluation, and propose the adoption of personalised prehabilitation to mitigate risk. Perioperative medicine is a growing speciality that aims to improve clinical outcome by preparing patients for the stress associated with surgery. Preparation should begin at contemplation of surgery, with universal screening for established risk factors, physical fitness, nutritional status, psychological health, and, where applicable, frailty and cognitive function. Patients at risk should undergo a formal assessment with a qualified healthcare professional which informs meaningful shared decision-making discussion and personalised prehabilitation prescription incorporating, where indicated, exercise, nutrition, psychological support, 'surgery schools', and referral to existing local services. The foundational principles of prehabilitation can be adapted to local context, culture, and population. Clinical services should be co-designed with all stakeholders, including patient representatives, and require careful mapping of patient pathways and use of multi-disciplinary professional input. Future research should optimise prehabilitation interventions, adopting standardised outcome measures and robust health economic evaluation.

'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway.

DESIGN

Three qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021.

SETTING

Elective TJA surgery in the English NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

Two focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels.

RESULTS

Fourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances.

CONCLUSION

The linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Recognizing and Maximizing the Nexus of Perioperative Medicine and Narrative Medicine

Perioperative medicine remains an evolving, interdisciplinary subspecialty, which encompasses the unique perspectives and incorporates the respective vital expertise of numerous stakeholders. This integrated model of perioperative medicine and care has a wide-ranging set of clinical, strategic, and operational goals. Among these various programmatic goals, a subset of 4, specific, interdependent goals include (1) enhancing patient-centered care, (2) embracing shared decision-making, (3) optimizing health literacy, and (4) avoiding futile surgery. Achieving and sustaining this subset of 4 goals requires continued innovative approaches to perioperative care. The burgeoning field of narrative medicine represents 1 such innovative approach to perioperative care. Narrative medicine is considered the most prominent recent development in the medical humanities. Its central tenet is that attention to narrative-in the form of the patient's story, the clinician's story, or a story constructed together by the patient and clinician-is essential for optimal patient care. If we can view the health care experience through the patient's eyes, we will become more responsive to patients' needs and, thereby, better clinicians. There is a potential clinical nexus between the perioperative medicine practice and narrative medicine skills, which, if capitalized, can maximize perioperative patient care. There are a number of untapped educational and research opportunities in this fruitful nexus between perioperative medicine and narrative medicine.

Future Perspectives on Prehabilitation Interventions in Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a map of key knowledge gaps regarding the evidence supporting prehabilitation and its integration with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. Filling this lack of knowledge with future research will further establish the effectiveness of prehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

These are electronic databases including PubMed and CINAHL.

CONCLUSION

Future efforts must embrace the elderly frail or cognitively impaired patient with specific needs to further promote restoration of postoperative function throughout the surgical pathway. Prehabilitation should be coupled and integrated within the existent concept of the ERAS framework, to facilitate the continuous evolution of screening, assessment, and optimization of high-risk surgical patients who are at risk of not being restored to physical and psychological function after surgery, including independence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

In the future, the ERAS nurse will be an essential figure of the prehabilitation program, proactively coordinating the assessment, optimization, and adjustment of perioperative comorbidity and guiding the rehabilitation process to improve patients' outcomes. These skills and characteristics will be required to provide optimal nursing care in the context of an integrated prehabilitation ERAS pathway.

Towards integrated perioperative medicine: a survey of general practitioners' attitudes, beliefs and behaviours regarding perioperative medicine for older people

BACKGROUND

Perioperative optimisation can improve outcomes for older people having surgery. Integration with primary care could improve quality and reduce variability in access to preoperative optimisation.

AIM

Our aim was to explore attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the perioperative pathway, and evaluate enablers and barriers to GP-led preoperative optimisation.

METHODS

Stakeholder interviews (n=38) informed survey development. A purposive sampling frame was used to target delivery of online and paper surveys. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We had 231 responses (response rate 32.7%). Enablers included belief among GPs that optimisation improves postoperative outcomes (86%) and that they have a role discussing modifiable risk factors with patients (85%). Barriers included low frequency exposure to older surgical patients, minimal training in perioperative medicine and rare interaction with perioperative services.

CONCLUSION

This survey illustrates the importance of interprofessional education, cross-sector training opportunities and collaboration to deliver integrated preoperative optimisation for older people undergoing surgery.

Severe chronic low back pain: patient journey from onset of symptoms to strong opioid treatments in Europe

Aim: We report the first patient roadmap in severe chronic low back pain (cLBP) in Europe, assessing the views of cLBP patients and general practitioners (GPs) who treat cLBP with regard to current cLBP management. Methodology: Patient journey mapping was conducted in four European countries to assess the views of cLBP patients (n = 20) and GPs (n = 40). Results: Four broad phases of cLBP, subdivided into eight individual steps, were identified as part of the patient journey, showing a disconnect between patients' and physicians' treatment goals, and expectations regarding pain relief levels for some patients. Conclusion: Improved communication, with greater involvement of patients in multimodal management decisions, might benefit the GP-patient relationship and overall outcomes for cLBP patients.

Efficacy of Prehabilitation Including Exercise on Postoperative Outcomes Following Abdominal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: This systematic review set out to identify, evaluate and synthesise the evidence examining the effect of prehabilitation including exercise on postoperative outcomes following abdominal cancer surgery. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE 1946-2020, EMBASE 1947-2020, CINAHL 1937-2020, PEDro 1999-2020, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials 1991-2020) were systematically searched (until August 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of prehabilitation interventions in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. This review included any form of prehabilitation either unimodal or multimodal that included whole body and/or respiratory exercises as a stand-alone intervention or in addition to other prehabilitation interventions (such as nutrition and psychology) compared to standard care. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 21 studies in the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality of evidence that multimodal prehabilitation improves pre-operative functional capacity as measured by 6 min walk distance (Mean difference [MD] 33.09 metres, 95% CI 17.69-48.50; p = <0.01) but improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness such as preoperative oxygen consumption at peak exercise (VO2 peak; MD 1.74 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.03-3.50; p = 0.05) and anaerobic threshold (AT; MD 1.21 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.34-2.76; p = 0.13) were not significant. A reduction in hospital length of stay (MD 3.68 days, 95% CI 0.92-6.44; p = 0.009) was observed but no effect was observed for postoperative complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.18; p = 0.27), pulmonary complications (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01; p = 0.05), hospital re-admission (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.90; p = 0.81) or postoperative mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.09, p = 0.90). Conclusion: Multimodal prehabilitation improves preoperative functional capacity with reduction in hospital length of stay. This supports the need for ongoing research on innovative cost-effective prehabilitation approaches, research within large multicentre studies to verify this effect and to explore implementation strategies within clinical practise.

A prospective cohort study evaluating screening and assessment of six modifiable risk factors in HPB cancer patients and compliance to recommended prehabilitation interventions

Introduction

Despite improvements in perioperative care, major abdominal surgery continues to be associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Accurate preoperative risk stratification and optimisation (prehabilitation) are necessary to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study evaluated the screening and assessment of modifiable risk factors amendable for prehabilitation interventions and measured the patient compliance rate with recommended interventions.

Method

Between May 2019 and January 2020, patients referred to our hospital for HPB surgery were screened and assessed on six modifiable preoperative risk factors. The risk factors and screening tools used, with cutoff values, included (i) low physical fitness (a 6-min walk test < 82% of patient’s calculated norm and/or patient’s activity level not meeting the global recommendations on physical activity for health). Patients who were unfit based on the screening were assessed with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (anaerobic threshold ≤ 11 mL/kg/min); (ii) malnutrition (patient-generated subjective global assessment ≥ 4); (iii) iron-deficiency anaemia (haemoglobin < 12 g/dL for women, < 13 g/dL for men and transferrin saturation ≤ 20%); (iv) frailty (Groningen frailty indicator/Robinson frailty score ≥ 4); (v) substance use (smoking and alcohol use of > 5 units per week) and (vi) low psychological resilience (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ≥ 8). Patients had a consultation with the surgeon on the same day as their screening. High-risk patients were referred for necessary interventions.

Results

One hundred consecutive patients were screened at our prehabilitation outpatient clinic. The prevalence of high-risk patients per risk factor was 64% for low physical fitness, 42% for malnutrition, 32% for anaemia (in 47% due to iron deficiency), 22% for frailty, 12% for smoking, 18% for alcohol use and 21% for low psychological resilience. Of the 77 patients who were eventually scheduled for surgery, 53 (68.8%) needed at least one intervention, of whom 28 (52.8%) complied with 100% of the necessary interventions. The median (IQR) number of interventions needed in the 77 patients was 1.0 (0–2).

Conclusion

It is feasible to screen and assess all patients referred for HPB cancer surgery for six modifiable risk factors. Most of the patients had at least one risk factor that could be optimised. However, compliance with the suggested interventions remains challenging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-020-00175-z.