BACKGROUND: Many older patients with cancer have their family members, often their adult children, involved in a process of treatment decision-making. Despite the growing awareness that family members can facilitate a process of shared decision-making, strategies for involving family members are scarce. Furthermore, literature about shared decision-making pays little attention to family involvement or to the impact that family relations have on the decision process. The purpose of this study was to explore how surgeons and nurses perceive the involvement of adult children of older patients with cancer in treatment decision-making. Subsequently, it identified strategies to ensure family involvement in the decision-making process, used in clinical practice.METHODS: Qualitative open in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 surgeons and 13 nurses working in a university or general hospital. Qualitative content analysis was conducted according to the steps of thematic analysis.RESULTS: Both nurses and surgeons indicated that adult children's involvement in decision-making about treatment increases when patients become frail. They mentioned several characteristics of adult children's behaviour during the decision-making process. Most of these characteristics are beneficial, but they also can be challenging. The distinct nature of adult children's involvement can help older patients with cancer reach better-informed treatment decisions. Health professionals reported six strategies to support positive family involvement in decision-making about treatment.CONCLUSION: Adult children may facilitate a process of shared decision-making and help patients reach well-informed treatment decisions. Health professionals' strategies deliberately support positive family involvement.
Purpose: As recovery time after oncological surgery can be long, family caregivers often play an important role in the delivery of care after patients’ discharge. To prepare carers for this role, we developed a family involvement program (FIP) to enhance their active involvement in post-surgical oncology care during hospitalization. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore family caregivers experience of participating in a FIP. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 family caregivers who participated in the family involvement program. The program is comprised of two main components (1) training and coaching of physicians and nurses; (2) active involvement of family caregivers in fundamental care activities. This active involvement included six activities. Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results: Family caregivers positively valued the program. Active participation in post-surgical care was experienced as an acceptable burden. The program gave participants the ability to simply be present (‘being there’) which was considered as essential and improved their understanding of care, although family caregivers sometimes experienced emotional moments. Active involvement strengthened existent relationship between the family caregiver and the patient. Participants thought clinical supervision. by nurses is important. Conclusions: Physical proximity appeared as an essential part of the family involvement program. It helped carers to feel they made a meaningful contribution to their loved ones’ wellbeing. Asking families to participate in fundamental care activities in post-surgical oncology care was acceptable, and not over-demanding for caregivers.
Background: There is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between family involvement and outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology patients after surgery. To evaluate the effect of a family involvement program for patients undergoing oncologic gastrointestinal surgery on unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. Methods: A multicenter patient-preference cohort study compared 2 groups: patients who participated in the family involvement program versus usual care. The program comprised involvement of family caregivers in care and training of health care professionals in family-centered care. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of the FIP on the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications sensitive to fundamental care activities, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, hospital length of stay, and the need for professional home care after discharge. Results: Of the 301 patients included, 152 chose the family involvement program, and 149 chose usual care. Postoperative readmissions occurred in 25 (16.4%) patients in the family involvement program group, and 15 (10.1%) in the usual care group (P = .11). A significant reduction of 16.2% was observed in the need for professional home care after discharge in the family involvement program group (P < .01). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The family involvement program did not reduce the number of unplanned readmissions, but it led to a substantial reduction in-home care, which suggests an economic benefit from a societal perspective. Implementation of the family involvement program should, therefore, be considered in clinical practice.
MULTIFILE
