Project description:BackgroundAs worldwide cancer prevalence continues to increase, the challenges facing cancer care are also increasing. Various topics related to deficiencies in cancer care have been discussed repeatedly in the literature. The most frequently stated topics are the unmet psychosocial support needs of cancer patients, difficulties in multidisciplinary teamwork, difficulties in communication between physicians and patients, and issues in palliative care settings. However, there is little research regarding the views of health care providers on these topics. With the aim of gaining abundant information regarding the care of German cancer patients, this study explores the stances of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses regarding the quality of cancer care.Materials and methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and in different oncological outpatient offices in Hamburg; twenty-five interviews in total were conducted with health care providers. Interviews were semi-structured to gain a broad range of information on cancer care. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke with an inductive, constant comparison approach to identify themes and categorized codes.ResultsThe following five principle themes were identified in the interviews: "psycho-oncological care", "cooperation of health care providers", "palliative care", "health care provider-patient contact", and "coordination and organization of care". Participants seemed satisfied with the overall quality of cancer care in Germany. Nevertheless, the results showed deficiencies regarding communication among different health care providers and between health care providers and patients. Important findings in conjunction with these communication problems were a lack of psycho-oncological support, shortages in the oncology work force, language and cultural barriers, and deficient education in the communication of providers.ConclusionsThe statements of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses on cancer care provide a suitable basis to conduct further focused research on the studied deficiencies in cancer care. In particular, communication in psycho-oncological care, communication within multidisciplinary teams, and health care provider-patient communication should be further explored with the aim of developing new ideas for improvements and thereby enhancing the quality of cancer care.

Project description:AimsTo understand current experiences of vital signs monitoring of patients and clinical staff on a surgical ward, and views on the introduction of wearable ambulatory monitoring into the general ward environment.DesignQualitative study.MethodsSemi-structured interviews using topic guides were conducted with 15 patients and 15 nurses on a surgical ward between July 2018 and August 2019. The concept of ambulatory wearable devices for clinical monitoring was introduced at the end of the interview.ResultsThree interconnected themes were identified. Vital sign data as evidence for escalation, examined nurses' use of data to support escalation of care and the implications for patients perceived to be deteriorating who have not reached the threshold for escalation. The second theme, Trustworthiness of vital sign data, described nurses' practice of using manual measurements to recheck or confirm automated vital signs readings when concerned. The final theme, finding a balance between continuous and intermittent monitoring, both patients and nurses agreed that although continuous monitoring may improve safety and reassurance, these needed to be balanced with multiple limitations. Factors to be considered included noise pollution, comfort, and impact on patient mobility and independence. Introduction of the concept of ambulatory wearable devices was viewed positively by both groups as offering solutions to some of the issues identified with traditional monitoring. However, most agreed that this would not be suitable for all patients and should not replace direct nurse/patient contact.ConclusionBoth patients and staff identified the benefits of continuous monitoring to improve patient safety but, due to limitations, use should be carefully considered and patient-centred.ImpactFeedback from nurses and patients suggests there is scope for ambulatory monitoring systems to be integrated into the hospital environment; however, both groups emphasized these should not add more noise to the ward nor replace direct nursing contact.

Project description:BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become preferable for the management of thromboembolic events. Recent publications have however identified high volume of medication errors related to DOACs. There is limited literature on why and how such errors occur or happen in clinical practice.AimThis study aimed to explore views, experiences, contributory factors related to DOACs medication errors from the perspectives of healthcare professionals.MethodSemi-structured interviews using online videoconferencing were conducted with physicians and nurses from tertiary care hospitals in three different regions in Saudi Arabia. Questions included views, experiences and perceived factors contributing to errors. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were thematically analyzed using MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2020 (VERBI Software).ResultsThe semi-structured interviews (n = 34) included physicians (n = 20) and nurses (n = 14) until data saturation was achieved. The analysis identified five themes: Factors related to healthcare professionals (e.g. knowledge, confidence and access to guidelines); Factors related to patients (e.g. comorbidity, polypharmacy, medication review, and communication barriers); Factors related to organization (e.g. guidelines, safety culture and incidents reporting system); Factors related to the DOACs medications (e.g. lack of availability of antidotes and dosing issues); and Strategies for error prevention/mitigation (e.g. the need for professional training and routine medication review).ConclusionHealthcare professionals identified errors in relation to DOACs as multifactorial including their own and patient lack of knowledge, lack of clinical guidelines and organizational factors including safety culture. Medication review and reconciliation on discharge were key strategies suggested to reduce DOACs related errors. These strategies support the role of pharmacists as direct patients care providers to minimize DOACs errors.

Project description:BackgroundClinical research nurses (CRNs) have first-hand experience with ethical challenges and play a crucial role in upholding ethical conduct and adherence to the principles of informed consent in clinical research. This study explores the ethical challenges encountered by CRNs in the process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research.MethodsA qualitative exploratory design. Semistructured interviews (n = 14) were conducted with diverse CRNs in Sweden. These CRNs covered a wide range of research fields, including pharmaceutical and academic studies, interventions, and observational research, spanning different trial phases, patient categories, and medical conditions. The interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe analysis identified three main categories: (i) threats to voluntariness, (ii) measures to safeguard voluntariness, and (iii) questionable exclusion of certain groups. CRNs face challenges due to time constraints, rushed decisions, information overload, and excessive reliance on physicians' recommendations. Overestimating therapeutic benefits in stages of advanced illness emerged as a risk to voluntariness. CRNs outlined proactive solutions, such as allowing ample decision-making time and offering support, especially for terminally ill patients. Concerns were also voiced about excluding certain demographics, such as those with language barriers or cognitive impairments.ConclusionsIn conclusion, upholding ethical research standards requires recognising various factors affecting patient voluntariness. Researchers and CRNs should prioritise refining the informed consent process, overcoming participation challenges, and aligning scientific rigour with personalised care. Additionally, a concerted effort is vital to meet the diverse needs of patient populations, including equitable inclusion of individuals with language barriers or cognitive limitations in clinical studies. These findings have significant implications for enhancing the ethics of clinical research and advancing person-centred care.

Project description:BackgroundClinical quality registries (CQRs) can likely improve quality in healthcare and research. However, studies indicate that effective use of CQRs is hindered by lack of engagement and interest among stakeholders, as well as factors related to organisational context, registry design and data quality. To fulfil the potential of CQRs, more knowledge on stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that will facilitate or hamper the development of CQRs is essential to the more appropriate targeting of registry implementation and the subsequent use of the data. The primary aim of this study was to examine factors that can potentially affect the development of a national CQR for interventional radiology in Norway from the perspective of stakeholders. Furthermore, we wanted to identify the intervention functions likely to enable CQR development. Only one such registry, located in Sweden, has been established. To provide a broader context for the Norwegian study, we also sought to investigate experiences with the development of this registry.MethodsA qualitative study of ten Norwegian radiologists and radiographers using focus groups was conducted, and an in-depth interview with the initiator of the Swedish registry was carried out. Questions were based on the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation for Behaviour Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. The participants' responses were categorised into predefined themes using a deductive process of thematic analysis.ResultsKnowledge of the rationale used in establishing a CQR, beliefs about the beneficial consequences of a registry for quality improvement and research and an opportunity to learn from a well-developed registry were perceived by the participants as factors facilitating CQR development. The study further identified a range of development barriers related to environmental and resource factors (e.g., a lack of organisational support, time) and individuallevel factors (e.g., role boundaries, resistance to change), as well as several intervention functions likely to be appropriate in targeting these barriers.ConclusionThis study provides a deeper understanding of factors that may be involved in the behaviour of stakeholders regarding the development of a CQR. The findings may assist in designing, implementing and evaluating a methodologically rigorous CQR intervention.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.DesignThis qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate medicines, and stimulated interprofessional dialogue in relation to medication reviews. The purpose of the diaries was to document and structure the pedagogical process of academic detailing and contained quotes from 194 GP and 113 nurse participants in the sessions, and the pharmacists' reflections. The data was explored using thematic analysis.SettingThirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden.SubjectsGPs and nurses working in primary care.Main outcome measuresThematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.ResultsFive themes were identified: 1) Complexity in 3 'P': patients, pharmacotherapy, and primary care; 2) What, when, who? Clash between GPs' and nurses' experiences and guidelines; 3) Real-world problems and less-than-ideal solutions; 4) Eureka? Experiences with different steps during a medication review; and 5) Threats to GP autonomy.ConclusionGPs and nurses should participate in the construction and release of guidelines in order to increase their usability in clinical practice. Future research should analyse if alternative strategies such as condensed medical reviews and feedback on prescribing are easier to implement in primary care. Key points Complex medication reviews have been introduced on a large scale in Swedish primary care, but knowledge on GPs' and nurses' views on such reviews is lacking. In the context of primary care alternative strategies such as condensed medication reviews and feedback on prescribing may be more applicable than medication reviews according to guidelines. GPs and nurses should make contributions to the development of guidelines on medication reviews in order to increase their usability in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

On clinical nurses’ views about diversities- A qualitative study

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets