Purpose: This study aimed to develop and pretest a systematic conversation approach for nurses to tailor aftercare to oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Methods: We used an iterative developmental process for complex interventions: 1. Identifying problems 2. Identifying overall objectives 3. Designing the intervention 4. Pretesting and adapting the intervention. Results: The main results of the problem identification were: non-systematic and incomplete screening of potential issues, caveats in providing information, and shared decision-making. The overall objective formulated was: To develop a model for aftercare conversations based on shared goal-setting and decision-making. The conversation approach consists of four phases: 1. Preparation of the consultation including a questionnaire, 2. Shared goal-setting by means of a tool visualizing domains of life, and 3. Shared care planning by means of an overview of possible choices in aftercare, a database with health care professionals and a cancer survivorship care plan. 4. Evaluation. The results of the pretest revealed that the conversation approach needs to be flexible and tailored to the patient and practice setting, and embedded in the care processes. The conversation approach was perceived as enhancing patient-centeredness and leading to more in-depth consultations. Conclusion: The conversation approach was developed in co-creation with stakeholders. The results of the pretest revealed important implications and suggestions for implementation in routine care. The aftercare conversation approach can be used by nurses to provide tailored patient-centered evidence-based aftercare. Tailored aftercare should support oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Further tailoring is needed.
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
Integrating knowledge and expertise from designers and scientists proposes solutions to complex problems in a flexible and open-minded way. However, little insight is available in how this collaboration works. Therefore, we reflected on a research project aimed at supportive care interventions for child oncology, and detected barriers and enablers for effective designer scientist collaboration. We interviewed medical scientists (n=2), designers (n=5), health care professionals (n=2), design students (n=3), and one design innovation-expert. Enablers appeared a receptive attitude towards innovation, and shared terminology facilitated by participatory design tools, internal communication means, and common goals. Largest barrier was unstable team membership. Future collaborative research projects might benefit when preventing barriers and stimulating enablers.
