Indicators to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer in Spain.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a set of criteria and indicators to evaluate the quality of care of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify valuable criteria/indicators for the assessment of the quality of care in HNC. With the aid of a technical group, a scientific committee of oncologists specialised in HNC used selected criteria to propose indicators that were evaluated with a two-round Delphi method. Indicators on which consensus was achieved were then prioritised by the scientific committee to develop a final set of indicators. RESULTS: We proposed a list of 50 indicators used in the literature or developed by us to be evaluated with a Delphi method. There was consensus on the appropriateness of 47 indicators in the first round; the remaining 3 achieved consensus in the second round. The 50 indicators were scored to prioritise them, leading to a final selection of 29 indicators related to structure (3), process (22), or outcome (4) and covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes in patients with HNC. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for each indicator, with their criterion, definition, formula for use in real-world clinical practice, rationale, and acceptable level of attainment. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of 29 evidence-based and expert-supported indicators for evaluating the quality of care in HNC, covering diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and health outcomes.

Overcoming barriers to opioid-induced constipation management in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common adverse effect of opioid therapy. We aim to identify the main barriers hindering clinical recommendations implementation and propose consensus solutions to improve OIC control in cancer patients. METHODS: Following collaborative and prioritization techniques, a scientific committee generated statements addressing possible barriers to optimal OIC management (related to patients, health providers and health care system), and potential interventions to overcome these barriers. An expert panel of 36 oncologists assessed the statements to reach a consensus. RESULTS: The survey consisted of 70 statements. Consensus was reached on 12/45 items related to barriers (26.6%) and on 19/25 items about corrective interventions (76%). The panel considered that patients are unaware of the existence of a specific OIC treatment, and their information sources are highly variable and unreliable. Regarding health providers, the panel considered that the oncologists prioritize symptoms such as diarrhea, pain, anxiety, or other treatment toxicities, over constipation. Work overload and bureaucratic requirements were the main barriers related to health care system. Regarding potential interventions, best-rated proposals included specific training programs development for primary care physicians and nurses, and multiplatform informative resources development for patients and caregivers, including precisely written instructions about OIC recognition and management. Oncologists assessed positively measures aiming to improve coordination between primary care physicians and oncologists, and nursing consultations implementation. The panel considered useful the OIC treatment algorithms simplification. CONCLUSIONS: The expert panel identified the main barriers to optimal OIC management and suggested some feasible approaches to overcome these barriers.

Effectiveness of a communication skills training program for medical students to identify patients communicative clues.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores whether an Experiential Training Programme (ETP) in communication skills (CS) improves students' ability to identify patients clues compared to those who follow a non-experiential training throughout their medical studies. METHOD: Intervention Group (IG): 85 4th-year medical students who received the ETP and Control Group (CG): 67 recently graduated students who did not receive it. Their immediate (written) response was requested to three expressions offered by patients containing communicative clues. The answers were grouped into 2 categories: Clue recognised and response patient-centred and the opposite. Three researchers analysed the answers. RESULTS: Responses 366 (65 from the CG and 77 from the IG): 280 did not recognise clues: 131 (62%) in IG and 149 (96%) in CG and 86 recognised them: 80 (37.9%) in IG and 6 (3.9%) in CG (p = 0.000). Some clues were more elusive than others (p = 0,003). CONCLUSIONS: The students who received the ETP in CS showed greater ability to explore patients perspective taking advantage of different types of communicative clues than those who did not receive it in a non-relational context. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to assess whether this ability is maintained in simulated or real clinical situations.