Shared decision making on medication use between nurses and patients in an oncology setting: A qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: (i) To explore patients' and nurses' experiences with medication-related shared decision making (SDM) (i.e., familiarity with the concept, application of medication-related SDM, barriers and facilitators towards its application) and (ii) to explore their role perceptions, respectively. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in which seven interviews with oncological patients and a focus group interview with six nurses were performed. Prior to the interviews, observations of the application of shared decision making were conducted using the OPTION-12 scale. The observations were used exclusively to trigger the group discussion. Data were collected from November 2020 until March 2021. RESULTS: According to participants, the application of SDM regarding medication by nurses in oncology is limited. Barriers mentioned were health status, medication-related knowledge, the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship, time pressures and workload. Patients valued nurses' contribution to SDM regarding medication and perceived them as key persons because of their advocating, informative, facilitating and supportive role. Individual and contextual factors determined patients' desire for involvement in medication-related decisions. DISCUSSION: Participants solely concentrated on SDM concerning drug choice and management of therapeutic and adverse effects. The patients' and nurses' experiences and perceptions towards SDM in other domains of pharmaceutical care need further investigation.

Relationships and dynamics in families with a child with a kidney transplant-A study of parents' everyday life experiences.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric kidney transplantation is often the best choice of treatment for kidney failure with replacement therapy and represents an important change in the child's well-being. There are, however, still a number of challenges in addition to the parental role. The magnitude of intensive parental caregiving and support required by children with a kidney transplant could be disruptive to family relationships and dynamics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of family relationships and dynamics among parents of a child with a kidney transplant. DESIGN: An explorative study using a qualitative method. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve parents (seven mothers and five fathers) of seven children with a kidney transplant were included. APPROACH: A phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied. METHOD: Semistructured, individual interviews were conducted. The data were analysed using Ricoeur's theory of interpretation on three levels: naïve reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation and discussion. FINDINGS: Three themes were generated: Emotions during ups and downs in everyday life; Balancing different needs among children; and Opportunities and having consideration in the family. CONCLUSION: Relationships between parents that are based on mutual emotional support are significant and essential during periods of severe illness in a child. Parents who are alone or emotionally marked by their child's disease history feel vulnerable and struggle to overcome challenges. Different health situations among siblings lead to challenges in bringing up the children and emotional dilemmas among parents that impact family dynamics. Resilience in parents is a shifting phenomenon that can influence how they deal with family relationships and dynamics.

Decision making in the oesophageal cancer trajectory a source of tension and edginess to patients and relatives: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The curative oesophageal cancer continuum-diagnosis, treatment and survivorship represents different phases with its own challenges for the involved parties. The process of treatment decisions and interactions between patients with oesophageal cancer (EC), relatives and health professionals is vital yet not well described. The purpose of the study was to explore patients' and relatives' experiences with the process of decision-making through the EC illness and treatment trajectory. METHODS: Longitudinal explorative design was employed based on ethnographic fieldwork in the form of participant observations inspired by the American anthropologist James Spradley. RESULTS: Sixteen patients and 18 relatives were recruited for participant observations. In total, 184 hours of participant observations were conducted. The study showed that decision-making was filled with tension and edginess. Four themes were identified: 1) The encounter with the medical authority, 2) The need to see the big picture in the treatment trajectory, 3) A predetermined treatment decision, and 4) Meeting numerous different health professionals. CONCLUSION: The EC trajectory and decision-making were filled with anxiety. Patients and relatives lacked an overview of the treatment pathway, leading to their role in decision-making often being governed by the medical authority. Timing information and continuity are vital factors in decision-making.

Undertaking responsibility and a new role as a relative: a qualitative focus group interview study.

BACKGROUND: Being a relative of a patient with oesophageal cancer can evoke strong emotions and uncertainty about the future. As a consequence of the treatment course for oesophageal cancer and an increase in outpatient treatment, relatives are becoming increasingly responsible for patients' physical and emotional care. There is a lack of research exploring relatives' experiences with illness, treatment and decision-making. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore relatives' experiences with illness, treatment of the patient and decision-making in the context of oesophageal cancer. DESIGN: A qualitative explorative design was chosen. METHODS: We conducted two focus group interviews with 11 relatives. The analysis was based on Ricoeur's theory of interpretation. RESULTS: Throughout illness and treatment, relatives faced the fear of loss, leading to distress and anxiety. Relatives were simultaneously taking responsibility and asserting a new role during treatment as they regarded treatment as a joint affair. Regarding decision-making, relatives positioned themselves on the sidelines, awaiting the authority of the patients and healthcare professionals to give them space for participation. CONCLUSION: Relatives of patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing treatment are suppressing their anxiety and doubt about the future. As they are undertaking responsibility during treatment, they are claiming control in new areas, which leads to changing roles within the family. However, they do not feel empowered in decision-making because they recognise patients' decision-making authority. This study highlights the complexity of balancing patients' authority with acknowledgement of relatives' role as active collaborators.

Being a relative on the sideline to the patient with oesophageal cancer: a qualitative study across the treatment course.

BACKGROUND: Being a relative of patients with oesophageal cancer or cancer in the oesophageal junction is stressful, as the healthcare system often overlooks concerns about the future as well as the roles and needs of relatives. There is a lack of research addressing relatives' experiences, roles and needs for participation in decisions. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore relatives' experiences before the start of treatment and their subsequent roles and needs for participation in treatment decisions. DESIGN: A qualitative approach based on a phenomenological - hermeneutical methodology was used. METHODS: Data consisted of participant observations and semi-structured interviews with 19 relatives of patients with oesophageal cancer. We analysed data with inspiration from Ricœur's theory of interpretation. RESULTS: The relatives were fellow sufferers, experiencing uncertainties and fear for the future with the patients, but they were simultaneously a challenged anchor during a difficult time, actively involved in handling the diagnosis and the everyday life. The relatives were positioned on the sideline both by the professionals and by themselves; they took a passive and subordinate part in decisions. CONCLUSION: Relatives are central to cancer care and treatment. Adequate and timely information is imperative for relatives as well for patients in order to facilitate shared decision-making. We advocate for a new approach to relatives in order to prepare the relatives for their roles and support their individual needs but also to acknowledge relatives' knowledge about everyday life from the relatives' perspective.

Patients' Experiences With Illness, Treatment, and Decision-Making for Esophageal Cancer: A Qualitative Study in a Danish Hospital Setting.

Patients with curable esophageal cancer or cancer in the esophageal junction face several challenges during the course of their treatment because of the burden of uncertainty in their prognoses and complexity and side effects of the treatment. The aim of this study is to explore patient experiences with illness, treatment, and decision-making in the context of esophageal cancer. A qualitative approach using phenomenological-hermeneutical methodology was used. Data consisted of participant observations and interviews. We analyzed the data based on Ricoeur's theory of interpretation. The results show that patients with esophageal cancer are putting their ordinary lives on hold and experiencing the meal as a battleground during treatment. Patients strive to maintain autonomy, gain control, and take ownership. The results emphasize the need for a systematic approach to establish an ongoing dialogue with patients throughout the course of treatment.

Gender Parity Remains To Be Achieved for the Range of Editorial Roles Associated with Current Australasian Medical Journals.

With gender parity of medical school graduates having been achieved for well over two decades, it is timely to assess whether this has translated into gender parity for all of the editorial type roles of Australasian medical journals, reflecting a move toward gender equity. Data analysis was undertaken of the gender ratios of the current editorial roles of Australasian medical journals as compared to available Australian Health Workforce data. This reveals some variation in the gender ratios for all of the current range of editorial type positions and, hence, an absence of parity. There are no women holding formal editorial positions at all for 27.7% of these journals, whilst 77.7% of the chief editors' roles are occupied by men. For five out of 18 (27.7%) of the journals, gender parity has been or is close to having been achieved for these particular roles. These gender ratios do not mirror the gender ratios of the wider community of practice for at least 50% of the journals. Hence, it can be seen that gender parity is yet to be achieved for the range of editorial roles of Australasian medical journals, which carries implications for gender equity initiatives.

The Effect of Patient-Controlled Oral Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain after Discharge.

BACKGROUND: During hospitalization, patients who were admitted with acute abdominal pain must be prepared to care for themselves at home after discharge to continue established treatment, promote recovery, and avoid readmission. AIMS: Our aim was to investigate the quality of pain management after discharge, when patient-controlled oral analgesia was compared with standard care for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and patient perception of care. The secondary outcome measures were pain interference with activity, affective experiences, side effects, and use of analgesics. DESIGN: A questionnaire study measuring the effect of an intervention on patient-controlled oral analgesics. SETTINGS: An emergency department and a surgical department in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. METHODS: A pre- and postintervention study was conducted in an emergency department and a surgical department with three subunits. Data were collected using a Danish modified Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire with five subscales (scale 0-10) completed in weeks 1 and 4 after discharge. RESULTS: In total, 117 patients were included. The median scores at week 1 and week 4 in the control and intervention groups were, respectively, 2/1 and 1/0 on the pain subscale (p = .11/.16), 3/0 and 3/0 on the activity subscale (p = .19/.80), 1/0 and 0/0 on the emotional subscale (p = .02/.72), 1/0 and 1/0 on the side effect subscale (p = .95/.99), and 8/5 and 7/7 on the patient perception subscale (p = .35/.49). There was no significant difference in the use of analgesics at week 1. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-controlled oral analgesia during the hospital stay did not improve the quality of pain management after discharge.

Patient-controlled oral analgesia at acute abdominal pain: A before-and-after intervention study of pain management during hospital stay.

AIM: To investigate the patient experience of pain management, when patient-controlled oral analgesia was compared with standard care for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and patient perception of care. BACKGROUND: Pain management of patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain can be insufficient. Patient involvement in health care has been seen to have benefits for patients. METHODS: A before-and-after intervention study was conducted in an emergency department observation unit and a surgical department. Data were collected from a questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-D) with the six subscales: pain severity, perception of care, interference with activity, interference with emotions, side effects and patient-related barriers. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included. During admission the median score (0-10 scale) for the pain intensity and patient perception of care subscale was 4 (p = 0.96) and 8 (p = 0.92), respectively, in both the control and intervention group. On the activity subscale, the median scores were 6 and 5 (p = 0.17); on the emotion subscale, the scores were 5 and 4 (p = 0.31); and on the side effect subscale, the scores were 3 and 4 (p = 0.18) in the control and intervention group, respectively. Overall, the score was 5-8 at one item about being allowed to participate in decisions about pain treatment as much as wanted. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled oral analgesia did not improve patient experience of pain management for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain.

Psychometric evaluation of the Danish version of a modified Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-D) for patients hospitalized with acute abdominal pain.

Background and aims This paper forms part of a study evaluating the effect of patient-controlled oral analgesia for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. Pain is a subjective experience, and a multifaceted evaluation tool concerning patient-reported outcome measures is needed to monitor, evaluate, and guide health care professionals in the quality of pain management. The Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) is a validated multifaceted evaluation tool for measuring patient-reported pain experiences to evaluate different pain management interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a modified Danish version of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R-D) used during and after hospitalization for patients with acute abdominal pain. Methods The APS-POQ-R was translated into Danish and two slightly different questionnaires were formed. Questionnaire one had 39 items and the six subscales pain severity (pain), perception of care (satisfaction), pain interference with function (activity) and emotions (emotion), side effects of treatment (safety), and patient-related barriers to pain management. The questionnaire focused on time during hospital stay and was to be completed at discharge. Questionnaire two included 25 items and the five subscales pain, satisfaction, activity, emotion, and safety and focused on time at home and was to be completed daily 1 week after discharge. The questionnaires were tested on 156 patients with acute abdominal pain. Internal consistency reliability and construct validity was examined. Results In both questionnaires, the results of correlations and tests for internal consistency reliability showed a Cronbach's alpha of >0.7 for the pain, activity, and emotion subscales, but the value was ≥0.69 for the satisfaction subscale. In questionnaire one, Cronbach's alpha was ≤0.64 for the safety subscale, but this was 0.73 when the item "itching" was deleted. In questionnaire two, Cronbach's alpha was ≤0.51 for the safety subscale. For the patient-barrier subscale in questionnaire one, Cronbach's alpha was ≤0.62 for any combination of the items in the subscale. The results of the construct validity and factor analysis showed a five-factor structure in questionnaire one and a three-factor structure in questionnaire two. In questionnaire one, items from the pain, activity, emotion, and safety subscales, except for the items "least pain" and "itching," loaded on factor one. In questionnaire two, all items from the pain, activity, and emotion subscales loaded on factor one. Conclusions The modified APS-POQ-R-D demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for the five subscales pain severity (pain), perception of care (satisfaction), pain interference with function (activity) and emotions (emotion), side effects of treatment (safety), but not for the patient-barrier subscale for patients hospitalized with acute abdominal pain. Consequently, the APS-POQ-R-D may be used without the patient-barrier subscale. Implications The clinical implications of this study may help clinicians with investigating how acute patients manage pain during and after hospital admission.

Patient-controlled oral analgesia for acute abdominal pain: A before-and-after intervention study on pain intensity and use of analgesics.

AIM: To compare the use of patient-controlled oral analgesia with nurse-controlled analgesia for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity. The secondary outcome measures were the use of analgesics and antiemetics. BACKGROUND: Inadequate pain management of patients with acute abdominal pain can occur during hospital admission. Unrelieved acute pain can result in chronic pain, stroke, bleeding and myocardial ischemia. METHODS: A before-and-after intervention study was conducted in an emergency department and a surgical department with three subunits. Data were collected from medical charts and analyzed using chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included. The median pain intensity score, using the numeric ranking scale, was 2.5 and 2 on Day 2 (p = 0.10), 2 and 2 on Day 3 (p = 0,40), 2.5 and 0 on Day 4 (p = 0.10), 2 and 0 on Day 5 (p = 0.045) in the control and intervention group, respectively. The percentage of patients receiving analgesics was 93 and 86 on Day 2 (p = 0.20), 91 and 75 on Day 3 (p = 0.02), 89 and 67 on Day 4 (p = 0.009) and 80 and 63 on Day 5 (p = 0.39). The use of antiemetics was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled oral analgesia significantly reduced the numerical ranking pain scale score on Day 5 and the consumption of analgesics on Days 3 and 4 after hospital admission. Patient-controlled oral analgesia is feasible as pain management for patients, but only with minor impact on experienced pain intensity and use of analgesics.

Time delay to surgery for appendicitis: no difference between surgical assessment unit and emergency department.

BACKGROUND: In Denmark, emergency departments (EDs) are replacing acute surgical and medical units. The aim of this study was to compare the trajectory of patients undergoing surgery on the suspicion of appendicitis in a surgical assessment unit (SAU) and EDs with an observation unit, respectively. The primary outcome measure was the time from hospital arrival-to-decision for surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative retrospective study with a cross-sectional design and a before-and-after design was carried out during January 2011 to December 2012 at a SAU and an ED at a university hospital (U-SAU and U-ED) and at an ED at a regional hospital (R-ED). Data included time of arrival, decision for surgery, surgery and discharge, and number of blood tests. RESULTS: In total, 250 patients were included. Time to decision for surgery was 4.50, 4.95, and 4.63 h (P=0.58) in the U-SAU, R-ED, and U-ED, respectively. Time from decision for surgery to start of surgery was 4.60, 3.29, and 4.12 h in the U-SAU, R-ED, and U-ED, respectively. The difference was significant between the U-SAU and R-ED (P=0.05) and between R-ED and U-ED (P=0.03). Time from surgery to discharge from the hospital was 17.88, 19.28, and 15.13 h in the U-SAU, R-ED, and U-ED, respectively. The difference was significant between the EDs (P=0.02). Significantly more blood tests were performed in the EDs than in the U-SAU. CONCLUSION: The introduction of EDs with observation units did not influence time to decision for surgery, but more blood tests were performed.

Perspectives of patients with acute abdominal pain in an emergency department observation unit and a surgical assessment unit: a prospective comparative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the patient perspective when admitted with acute abdominal pain to an emergency department observation unit compared with the perspective when admitted to a surgical assessment unit. BACKGROUND: An increase in emergency department observation units has led to more short-term admissions and has changed the patient journey from admission to specialised wards staffed by specialist nurses to stays in units staffed by emergency nurses. DESIGN: A comparative field study. METHODS: The study included 21 patients. Participant observation and qualitative interviews were performed, and the analyses were phenomenological-hermeneutic. RESULTS: Emergency department observation unit patients had extensive interaction with health professionals, which could create distrust. Surgical assessment unit patients experienced lack of interaction with nurses, also creating distrust. Emergency department observation unit patients had more encounters with fellow patients than the surgical assessment unit patients did, which was beneficial when needing assistance, but disturbing when needing rest. The limited contact with other patients in the surgical assessment unit revealed the opposite effect. In both units, there was nonpersonalised care, making it difficult for patients to make informed decisions. CONCLUSION: The multibedded rooms in the emergency department observation unit had a positive influence on patient­nurse interaction, but a negative influence on privacy; the opposite was found in the surgical assessment unit with its rooms with fewer beds. The extensive professional­patient interactions in the emergency department observation unit created distrust. The limited professional­patient interaction in the surgical assessment unit did the same. That the emergency department observation unit was staffed by emergency nurses seemed to have a positive influence on the length of patient­nurse interactions, while the surgical assessment unit staffed by specialist nurses seemed to have the opposite effect. There was lack of information and personalised care in both units. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Units receiving acute patients need to provide personalised care and information about how the unit functions and about care and treatment to improve the patients' ability to make decisions during admission.

Discharge from an emergency department observation unit and a surgical assessment unit: experiences of patients with acute abdominal pain.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of patients with acute abdominal pain at discharge from an emergency department observation unit compared with discharge from a surgical assessment unit. BACKGROUND: The increase in emergency department observation units has increased short-term admissions and changed the patient journey from admission and discharge from specialised wards staffed by specialist nurses to admission and discharge from units staffed by emergency nurses. DESIGN: A comparative qualitative interview study. METHODS: The study included 20 patients: 10 from an emergency department observation unit and 10 from a surgical assessment unit, and took a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. Patients were interviewed at discharge and three months later. RESULTS: More patients from the emergency department observation unit experienced readiness for discharge and had plans for follow-up, compared with patients from the surgical assessment unit. In the surgical assessment unit, more patients were readmitted, had unanswered questions after three months and experienced a follow-up visit at the general practitioner as insufficient. More patients from the surgical assessment unit reported receiving useful self-care advice, compared with those from the emergency department observation unit. CONCLUSION: The experience of emergency department observation unit patients on discharge and follow-up was that the health professionals were more supportive, compared with surgical assessment unit patients, who felt discharge occurred too early, but with more preparation for independent home self-care. These results are an important factor in the patient experience of discharge from hospital and may reflect differences in specialisation of the nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Units discharging patients with acute abdominal pain could be inspired by scheduled fast-track surgery programmes with structured information about admission, treatment and follow-up and easy access to relevant health professionals after discharge.

Front-end specialists reduce time to a treatment plan for patients with acute abdomen.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (EDs) are replacing acute specialised wards in Denmark. The aim was to compare time to a treatment plan for patients with acute abdomen at a surgical assessment unit (SAU) and at an ED, respectively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative prospective observational study was performed. The data collected included time to a doctor, a surgeon, a plan for treatment, analgesics, blood tests and time spent with health professionals. RESULTS: The study included 109 patients. In the SAU, the median waiting time to be seen by a doctor was 72 min. and in the ED it was 86 min. (p = 0.25). The median time to be seen by a surgeon was 72 min. in the SAU and 148 min. in the ED (p ≤ 0.0001). In the SAU, the median time to a treatment plan was 131 min. and in the ED 166 min. (p = 0.02). In the SAU, patients spent 15 min. with nurses, in the ED 32 min. (p ≤ 0.0001). In the SAU, patients spent 11 min. with doctors in the ED 24 min. (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Waiting time until a plan was presented to the patient was significantly shorter in the SAU than in the ED and this owed to the presence of a specialist surgeon at the hospital front-end in the SAU. The staff spent significantly more time with patients in the ED than in the SAU and significantly more blood tests were taken. FUNDING: University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital and Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Experiences of patients with acute abdominal pain in the ED or acute surgical ward --a qualitative comparative study.

The Danish health care system is currently establishing emergency departments (EDs) with an observation unit nationwide. The aim of the study was to investigate patients with acute abdominal pain and their experiences upon arrival and stay in an acute surgical ward (ASW) versus an ED with an observation unit. A phenomenological-hermeneutic comparative field study with participant observation and interviews was performed. The analysis showed five themes: Waiting, being placed on the edge, taking or not taking initiative, being the object of attention and being taken seriously. The conclusion was that the ED included a multidisciplinary team with nurses, who mainly had interactions with the patients before surgical assessment. In all, it resulted in fragmentation of care and a patient experience of repetition. In ASW, focus was on assessment by a senior physician, only, and the nurses' interaction with the patients took place after surgical assessment. In all, patients experienced long waiting times. The study shows a need to define the roles of the professionals in units receiving patients with acute abdominal pain in order to fulfil the medical as well as the experienced needs of the acute patient.