An exploratory cross-sectional study of the effects of ongoing relationships with accompanying patients on cancer care experience, self-efficacy, and psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Canada introduced accompanying patients (APs) into the breast cancer care trajectory. APs are patients who have been treated for breast cancer and have been integrated into the clinical team to expand the services offered to people affected by cancer. This study describes the profiles of the people who received the support and explores whether one-offs vs ongoing encounters with APs influence their experience of care, on self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and on their level of psychological distress. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out among patients to compare patients who had one encounter with an AP (G1) with those who had had several encounters (G2). Five questionnaires were administered on socio-demographic characteristics, care pathway, evaluation of the support experience, self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Logbooks, completed by the APs, determined the number of encounters. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the number of encounters, patient characteristics, care pathway, number of topics discussed, self-efficacy measures in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and December 2021, 60% of 535 patients who were offered support from an AP accepted. Of these, one hundred and twenty-four patients participated in the study. The study aimed to recruit a minimum of 70 patients with the expectation of obtaining at least 50 participants, assuming a response rate of 70%. There were no differences between G1 and G2 in terms of sociodemographic data and care pathways. Statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 for impacts on and the return to daily life (p = 0.000), the return to the work and impacts on professional life (p = 0.044), announcement of a diagnosis to family and friends (p = 0.033), and strategies for living with treatment under the best conditions (p = 0.000). Significant differences were found on the topics of cancer (p = 0.000), genetic testing (p = 0.023), therapeutic options (p = 0.000), fatigue following treatment (p = 0.005), pain and discomfort after treatment or surgery (p = 0.000), potential emotions and their management (p = 0.000) and the decision-making processes (p = 0.011). A significant relationship was found between the two groups for patients' ability to cope with cancer (p = 0.038), and their level of psychological distress at different stages of the care pathway (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows differences between one-time and ongoing support for cancer patients. It highlights the potential for APs to help patients develop self-efficacy and cope with the challenges of cancer treatment.

Accompanying patients in clinical oncology teams: Reported activities and perceived effects.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2018, four establishments in Quebec, Canada, have decided to implement the PAROLE-Onco programme, which introduced accompanying patients (APs) in healthcare teams to improve the experience of cancer patients. APs are patient advisors who have had a cancer treatment experience and who conduct consultations to complement the service offered by providing emotional, informational and educational support to patients undergoing treatments (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery), mostly for breast cancer. We aimed to explore the evolution of APs' perspectives regarding their activities within the clinical oncology teams as well as the perceived effects of their intervention with patients, the clinical team and themselves. METHODS: A qualitative study based on semistructured interviews and focus groups was conducted with APs at the beginning of their intervention (T1) and 2 years afterwards (T2). The themes discussed were APs' activities and the perceived effects of their interventions on themselves, on the patients and on the clinical team. RESULTS: In total, 20 APs were interviewed. In T2, APs' activities shifted from listening and sharing experiences to empowering patients by helping them become partners in their care and felt generally more integrated into the clinical team. APs help patients feel understood and supported, alleviate stress and become partners in the care they receive. They also alleviate the clinical team's workload by offering a complementary service through emotional support, which, according to them, helps patients feel calmer and more prepared for their appointments with healthcare professionals. They communicate additional information about their patients' health journey, which makes the appointment more efficient for healthcare professionals. When APs accompany patients, they feel as if they can make a difference in patients' lives. Their activities are perceived by some as an opportunity to give back but also as a way of giving meaning to their own experience, in turn serving as a learning experience. CONCLUSION: By mobilizing their experiential knowledge, APs provide emotional, informational, cognitive and navigational support, which allows patients to be more empowered in their care and which complements professionals' scientific knowledge, thereby helping to refine their sensitivity to the patients' experiences. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient-researchers have contributed to the study design, the conduct of the study, the data analysis and interpretation, as well as in the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Reducing social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessing the contribution of courtesy phone calls by volunteers.

CONTEXT: During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions were imposed on visits in hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada in an effort to reduce the risk of viral exposure by minimizing face-to-face contact in order to protect patients, visitors and staff. These measures led to social isolation for patients. In order to reduce this isolation, CHUM (the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, a teaching hospital) shifted from in-person visits to courtesy telephone calls delivered by volunteers from CHUM's Volunteers, Recreation and Leisure Department. OBJECTIVES: To study: (1) the contribution made by these calls to reducing isolation and their limitations, (2) how the calls can be improved, and (3) whether they should be maintained, based on the views of patients and volunteers. METHODOLOGY: This study examined two populations. The first one consisted of 189 adult patients hospitalized at CHUM who received a courtesy phone call from a volunteer and the second one consisted of the 25 CHUM volunteers who made these calls. Quantitative data were collected from patients and volunteers through questionnaires and a Smartsheet. The patient questionnaire evaluated isolation, the courtesy phone calls, the relationship of trust with the volunteer and sociodemographic questions. The volunteer questionnaire evaluated the appropriateness of the technology for the intervention, the support and training received, the impacts of the courtesy phone call on both the patients and the volunteers, an experience report and sociodemographic information. In addition, a focus group was held with 7 volunteers. Then the verbatim were transcribed and analyzed using QDA miner software. RESULTS: From April 27, 2020 to September 5, 2020 more than 11,800 calls were made, mainly concerning hospitalization conditions or home follow-ups (n = 83), and relationships with relatives, friends, and family (n = 79). For 73.6% of hospitalized patients, the courtesy calls from volunteers were a good response to their needs, and 72% of volunteers agreed. 64.5% of patients felt less isolated and 40% of volunteers felt useful. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients felt less isolated during their hospitalization because of the courtesy calls made by the volunteers, that smartphones could also be used for video calls and, finally, that maintaining this type of service seems as relevant after as during a pandemic to provide social interactions to people isolated for medical reasons.

Healthcare Professional Perspectives on the Use of Remote Patient-Monitoring Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need to act to reduce the spread of the virus and alleviate congestion in healthcare services, protect health professionals, and help them maintain satisfactory quality and safety of care. Remote monitoring platforms (RPM) emerged as potential solutions. In this study, we evaluate, from health professionals' perspectives, the capacity and contribution of two different digital platforms to maintain quality, safety, and patient engagement in care. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey in which a total of 491 health professionals participated. The results show that, in general, user perceptions of the quality and safety of care provided through the platforms were positive. The ease of access to health professionals' services in general and shorter waiting times for patients were the two main features that were highly appreciated by most participants. However, some problems were encountered during the use of these two platforms, such as a lack of training and/or direct support for users. To improve the two platforms and maximize their use, the areas for improvement and the issues identified should be addressed as part of a collaborative process involving health professionals and patients as well as health system leaders, decision-makers, and digital platform providers.

Healthcare Professional Perspectives on the Use of Remote Patient-Monitoring Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need to act to reduce the spread of the virus and alleviate congestion in healthcare services, protect health professionals, and help them maintain satisfactory quality and safety of care. Remote monitoring platforms (RPM) emerged as potential solutions. In this study, we evaluate, from health professionals' perspectives, the capacity and contribution of two different digital platforms to maintain quality, safety, and patient engagement in care. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey in which a total of 491 health professionals participated. The results show that, in general, user perceptions of the quality and safety of care provided through the platforms were positive. The ease of access to health professionals' services in general and shorter waiting times for patients were the two main features that were highly appreciated by most participants. However, some problems were encountered during the use of these two platforms, such as a lack of training and/or direct support for users. To improve the two platforms and maximize their use, the areas for improvement and the issues identified should be addressed as part of a collaborative process involving health professionals and patients as well as health system leaders, decision-makers, and digital platform providers.