Adoption of evidence-based end-of-life and bereavement support to families in cancer care: A contextual analysis study with health professionals.

AIMS: To investigate the level of adoption of evidence-based family engagement and support during end-of-life cancer care and subsequent bereavement and its contextual facilitators and barriers from health professionals' perspectives, and to explore differences between professional groups. DESIGN: Contextual analysis using an online cross-sectional survey. METHODS: This study was conducted in four Swiss hospitals and three home care oncology and palliative care services. Non-parametric testing was used to investigate the level of adoption and differences between nurses, physicians, occupational- and physiotherapists and psychosocial professionals (chaplains, onco-psychologists and social workers). The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was followed. RESULTS: The majority of the 111 participating health professionals were nurses. Adoption was statistically significantly higher during end-of-life care than bereavement, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than the other professional groups. Guidance on end-of-life family care was available in about half of the cases, in contrast to a quarter for bereavement care. Self-perceived knowledge, skills and attitudes were moderate to high, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than others, except for general skills in working with families. Organisational structures were experienced as rather supportive, with the psychosocial group appraising the organisational context as significantly less conducive to fully implementing end-of-life and bereavement care than others, particularly during the end-of-life phase. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based family engagement and support were better adopted during end-of-life care than bereavement. Overall, nurses and physicians felt better enabled to care for families compared to other professional groups. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/j4kfh. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Implementation and quality improvement efforts should focus particularly on the bereavement phase and be tailored to professional groups. IMPACT: The findings show that evidence-based family engagement and support practices during end-of-life were rather well adopted in contrast to subsequent bereavement care, with nurses and physicians better enabled than other professionals to provide care. A better understanding of health professionals' contributions and roles in family care is important to build interprofessional capacity for evidence-based end-of-life and bereavement support. REPORTING METHOD: The STROBE checklist for reports of cross-sectional studies was followed (von Elm et al., 2007).

Lessons From the First Wave of COVID-19: Work-Related Consequences, Clinical Knowledge, Emotional Distress, and Safety-Conscious Behavior in Healthcare Workers in Switzerland.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) imposes an unusual risk to the physical and mental health of healthcare workers and thereby to the functioning of healthcare systems during the crisis. This study investigates the clinical knowledge of healthcare workers about COVID-19, their ways of acquiring information, their emotional distress and risk perception, their adherence to preventive guidelines, their changed work situation due to the pandemic, and their perception of how the healthcare system has coped with the pandemic. It is based on a quantitative cross-sectional survey of 185 Swiss healthcare workers directly attending to patients during the pandemic, with 22% (n = 40) of them being assigned to COVID-19-infected patients. The participants answered between 16th June and 15th July 2020, shortly after the first wave of COVID-19 had been overcome and the national government had relaxed its preventive regulations to a great extent. The questionnaire incorporated parts of the "Standard questionnaire on risk perception of an infectious disease outbreak" (version 2015), which were adapted to the case of COVID-19. Clinical knowledge was lowest regarding the effectiveness of standard hygiene (p < 0.05). Knowledge of infectiousness, incubation time, and life-threatening disease progression was higher, however still significantly lower than regarding asymptomatic cases and transmission without physical contact (p < 0.001). 70% (95%-confidence interval: 64-77%) of the healthcare workers reported considerable emotional distress on at least one of the measured dimensions. They worried significantly more strongly about patients, elderly people, and family members, than about their own health (p < 0.001). Adherence to (not legally binding) preventive guidelines by the government displayed patterns such that not all guidelines were followed equally. Most of the participants were faced with a lack of protective materials, personnel, structures, processes, and contingency plans. An increase in stress level was the most prevalent among the diverse effects the pandemic had on their work situation. Better medical equipment (including drugs), better protection for their own mental and physical health, more (assigned) personnel, more comprehensive information about the symptoms of the disease, and a system of earlier warning were the primary lessons to be learned in view of upcoming waves of the pandemic.