ObjectiveTo develop, implement and evaluate a personalized patient discharge letter (PPDL) to improve the quality of handoff communication from hospital to home.DesignFrom the end of 2006–09 we conducted a quality improvement project; consisting of a before–after evaluation design, and a process evaluation.SettingFour general internal medicine wards, in a 1024-bed teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ParticipantsAll consecutive patients of 18 years and older, admitted for at least 48 h.InterventionsA PPDL, a plain language handoff communication tool provided to the patient at hospital discharge.Main Outcome MeasuresVerbal and written information provision at discharge, feasibility of integrating the PPDL into daily practice, pass rates of PPDLs provided at discharge.ResultsA total of 141 patients participated in the before–after evaluation study. The results from the first phase of quality improvement showed that providing patient with a PPDL increased the number of patients receiving verbal and written information at discharge. Patient satisfaction with the PPDL was 7.3. The level of implementation was low (30%). In the second phase, the level of implementation improved because of incorporating the PPDL into the electronic patient record (EPR) and professional education. An average of 57% of the discharged patients received the PPDL upon discharge. The number of discharge conversations also increased.ConclusionPatients and professionals rated the PPDL positively. Key success factors for implementation were: education of interns, residents and staff, standardization of the content of the PPDL, integrating the PPDL into the electronic medical record and hospital-wide policy.
Background: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic influenced family-centred care dramatically due to restricting visiting policies. In this new situation, nurses were challenged to develop new approaches to involve family members in patient care. A better understanding of these changes and the experiences of nurses is essential to make an adaptation of procedures, and to secure a family-centred approach in care as much as possible. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate how family involvement had taken place, and to explore the experiences of nurses with family involvement during the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition, we aimed to formulate recommendations for the involvement of family. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using patient record review and focus-group interviews between April and July 2020. We reviewed records of patients with confirmed COVID-19, who were admitted to the COVID-19 wards at two affiliated university hospitals in the Netherlands. All records were searched for notations referring to family involvement. In two focus-groups, nurses who worked at the COVID-19 wards were invited to share their experiences. The Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction (RADaR) method was used to collect, reduce and analyse the data. Results: In total, 189 patient records were reviewed and nine nurses participated in the focus-group meetings. Patient records revealed infrequent and often unstructured communication with focus on physical condition. Nurses confirmed that communication with family was far less than before and that the physical condition of the patient was predominant. The involvement of family in care was limited to practicalities, although more involvement was described in end-of-life situations. Nurses experienced moral distress due to the visiting restrictions, though some acknowledged that they had experienced the direct patient care so intense and burdensome, that family contact simply felt too much. Conclusion: The communication with and involvement of family in hospital care changed enormously during the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on the identified themes, we formulated recommendations that may be helpful for family-centered care in hospitals during periods of restricted visiting policy.
Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly. Methods: We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our userbase consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers. Results: Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/. Conclusions: User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.
