The gap between policy and practice: a systematic review of patient-centred care interventions in chronic heart failure

Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II–IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included ‘patient-centred care’, ‘quality of life’ and ‘shared decision making’. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.

Radiographer-led online image guided adaptive radiotherapy: A qualitative investigation of the therapeutic radiographer role

INTRODUCTION

Online MRI guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRIgRT) is resource intensive. To maintain and increase uptake traditional roles and responsibilities may need refining. This novel study aims to provide an in-depth understanding and subsequent impact of the roles required to deliver on-line adaptive MRIgRT by exploring the current skills and knowledge of radiographers.

METHOD

A purposive sampling approach was used to invite radiographers, clinicians and physicists from centres with experience of MRIgRT to participate. Focus Group Interviews were conducted with two facilitators using a semi-structure interview guide (Appendix 1). Four researchers independently familiarised themselves and coded the data using framework analysis. A consensus thematic framework of ptive Radiotherapy codes and categories was agreed and systematically applied.

RESULTS

Thirty participants took part (Radiographers: N = 18, Physicists: N = 9 and Clinicians: N = 3). Three key themes were identified: 'Current MRIgRT', 'Training' and 'Future Practice'. Current MRIgRT identified a variation in radiographers' roles and responsibilities with pathways ranging from radiographer-led, clinician-light-led and MDT-led. The consensus was to move towards radiographer-led with the need to have a robust on-call service heavily emphasised. Training highlighted the breadth of knowledge required by radiographers including MRI, contouring, planning and dosimetry, and treatment experience. Debate was presented over timing and length of training required. Future Practice identified the need to have radiographers solely deliver MRIgRT, to reduce staff present which was seen as a main driver, and time and resources to train radiographers seen as the main barriers.

CONCLUSION

Radiographer-led MRIgRT is an exciting development because of the potential radiographer role development. A national training framework created collaboratively with all stakeholders and professions involved would ensure consistency in skills and knowledge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Role development and changes in education for therapeutic radiographers.

The psychosocial and emotional experiences of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11th, 2020. Global social lockdowns were instigated to reduce spread and prevent health-services from becoming overwhelmed. People having treatment for cancer are known to have heightened psychological/emotional burden. The combined impact of managing pandemic regulations alongside this may present additional burden. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine current evidence of the psychological and emotional impact of COVID-19 on people with cancer, early in the pandemic.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched (Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL) from September 2019 to October 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method primary research studies exploring emotional and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on cancer patients, limited to English language, were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using the MMAT.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers, with 27,356 people from 21 countries treated for cancer, were included. 43 studies were quantitative with a survey method approach, six studies qualitative and four used a mixed methods design. MMAT score was mostly two or three. Four themes were identified: Emotional aspects and Quality of Life; Psychosocial aspects; Impact of COVID-19 on self; Impact of COVID-19 on cancer, with themes overlapping.

CONCLUSION

Whilst emotional/psychological impacts such as anxiety, isolation, employment fears, and uncertainty about the future were potentially universal concerns early in the pandemic, they may have been particularly acute for people living with cancer and represent complex, overlapping factors. As COVID-19 continues to impact health-services and society, it is important to focus on any ongoing impact to the experience of cancer patients. Most of the studies reviewed used tools that do not provide deeper understanding of how and why emotional states of people with cancer were affected. Further qualitative work may reveal patterns of what was unique to cancer patients during the pandemic, compared to general populations.