Introduction: 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 (SDM), literature about SDM pays little attention to family relations and strategies to facilitate family involvement in decision making processes. Objective: This study aimed to 1. explore surgeons' and nurses' perceptions about involvement of adult children in treatment decision-making for older patients; and 2. identify strategies they use to ensure positive family involvement. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 surgical oncologists and 13 oncology nurses in two Dutch hospitals. Qualitative content analysis was conducted according to the steps of thematic analysis. Results: Surgeons and nurses indicated that adult children's involvement in decision-making increases when patients become frail. They reported beneficial and challenging characteristics of this involvement. Six strategies to stimulate positive involvement of adult children in the decision-making process were revealed: 1. Focus on the patient; 2. Actively involve adult children; 3. Acknowledge different perspectives; 4. Get to know the family system; 5. Check that the patient and family members understand the information; and 6. Stimulate communication and deliberation with adult children.Conclusion: Surgeons and nurses perceive involvement of adult in treatment decision making as beneficial. However, family involvement can trigger specific complexities and challenges in treatment decision conversations that call for practical patient and family-centered strategies.
Objectives: In the post-surgical setting, active involvement of family caregivers has the potential to improve patient outcomes by prevention of surgical complications that are sensitive to fundamental care. This paper describes the development of a theoretically grounded program to enhance the active involvement of family caregivers in fundamental care for post-surgical patients. Methods: We used a quality improvement project following a multi-phase design. In Phase 1, an iterative method was used to combine evidence from a narrative review and professionals’ preferences. In Phase 2, the logic model underlying the program was developed guided by four steps: (1) confirm situation, intervention aim, and target population; (2) documented expected outcomes, and outputs of the intervention; (3) identify and describe assumptions, external factors and inputs; and (4) confirm intervention components. Results: Phase 1 identified a minimum set of family involvement activities that were both supported by staff and the narrative review. In Phase 2, the logic model was developed and includes (1) the inputs (e.g. educational- and environmental support), (2) the ultimate outcomes (e.g. reduction of postoperative complications), (3) the intermediate outcomes (e.g. behavioural changes), and (4) immediate outcomes (e.g. improved knowledge, skills and attitude). Conclusions: We demonstrated how we aimed to change our practice to an environment in which family caregivers were stimulated to be actively involved in postoperative care on surgical wards, and how we took different factors into account. The description of this program may provide a solid basis for professionals to implement the family involvement program in their own setting.
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
