Exploring Nurse and Patient Experiences of Developing Rapport During Oncology Ambulatory Care Videoconferencing Visits: Qualitative Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Although videoconferencing between oncology patients and nurses became routine during the pandemic, little is known about the development of clinician-patient rapport in this care environment. Evidence that virtual visits may challenge nurses' ability to form connections with patients, demonstrate empathy, and provide support suggests that videoconferencing may not ensure optimal care for persons with cancer. Establishing rapport during videoconferencing visits (VCVs) is important in oncology nursing, as rapport enables the nurse to provide emotional support and assistance to patients as they navigate their cancer journey. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the nature of nurse-patient rapport in ambulatory cancer care videoconferencing telehealth visits. Objectives included exploring (1) how patients with cancer and nurses describe experiences of and strategies for cultivating rapport and (2) similarities and differences between rapport in videoconferencing and in-person visits (IPVs). METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, interviews were conducted from October 2021 to March 2022 with 22 participants, including patients with cancer (n=10, 45%) and oncology nurses (n=12, 55%), about their experiences of rapport building during VCVs. All interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Data from nurses and patients were analyzed separately using identical procedures, with a comparative analysis of patient and nurse results performed in the final analysis. RESULTS: Most patients in the study had experienced 3-5 video visits within the past 12 months (n=7, 70%). Half of the nurse participants (n=6, 50%) reported having participated in over 100 VCVs, and all had experiences with videoconferencing (ranging from 3 to 960 visits) over the past 12 months. In total, 3 themes and 6 categories were derived from the patient data, and 4 themes and 13 categories were derived from the nurse data. Comparisons of themes derived from participant interviews identified similarities in how nurses and patients described experiences of rapport during VCVs. Three themes fit the collective data: (1) person-centered and relationship-based care is valued and foundational to nurse-patient rapport in oncology ambulatory care regardless of how care is delivered, (2) adapting a bedside manner to facilitate rapport during VCVs is feasible, and (3) nurses and patients can work together to create person-centered options across the care trajectory to ensure quality care outcomes. Barriers to relationship building in VCVs included unexpected interruptions from others, breaks in the internet connection, concerns about privacy, and limitations associated with not being physically present. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centered and relationship-based approaches can be adapted to support nurse-patient rapport in VCVs, including forming a personal connection with the patient and using active listening techniques. Balancing the challenges and limitations with the benefits of videoconferencing is an essential competency requiring additional research and guidelines. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/27940.

Point-of-care serological assays for delayed SARS-CoV-2 case identification among health-care workers in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers constitute a high-risk population for acquisition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Capacity for acute diagnosis via PCR testing was limited for individuals with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and a substantial proportion of health-care workers with suspected infection were not tested. We aimed to investigate the performance of point-of-care and laboratory serology assays and their utility in late case identification, and to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. METHODS: We did a prospective multicentre cohort study between April 8 and June 12, 2020, in two phases. Symptomatic health-care workers with mild to moderate symptoms were eligible to participate 14 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, as per the Public Health England (PHE) case definition. Health-care workers were recruited to the asymptomatic cohort if they had not developed PHE-defined COVID-19 symptoms since Dec 1, 2019. In phase 1, two point-of-care lateral flow serological assays, the Onsite CTK Biotech COVID-19 split IgG/IgM Rapid Test (CTK Bitotech, Poway, CA, USA) and the Encode SARS-CoV-2 split IgM/IgG One Step Rapid Test Device (Zhuhai Encode Medical Engineering, Zhuhai, China), were evaluated for performance against a laboratory immunoassay (EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 IgG ELISA kit [Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA]) in 300 samples from health-care workers and 100 pre-COVID-19 negative control samples. In phase 2 (n=6440), serosurveillance was done among 1299 (93·4%) of 1391 health-care workers reporting symptoms, and in a subset of asymptomatic health-care workers (405 [8·0%] of 5049). FINDINGS: There was variation in test performance between the lateral flow serological assays; however, the Encode assay displayed reasonable IgG sensitivity (127 of 136; 93·4% [95% CI 87·8-96·9]) and specificity (99 of 100; 99·0% [94·6-100·0]) among PCR-proven cases and good agreement (282 of 300; 94·0% [91·3-96·7]) with the laboratory immunoassay. By contrast, the Onsite assay had reduced sensitivity (120 of 136; 88·2% [95% CI 81·6-93·1]) and specificity (94 of 100; 94·0% [87·4-97·8]) and agreement (254 of 300; 84·7% [80·6-88·7]). Five (7%) of 70 PCR-positive cases were negative across all assays. Late changes in lateral flow serological assay bands were recorded in 74 (9·3%) of 800 cassettes (35 [8·8%] of 400 Encode assays; 39 [9·8%] of 400 Onsite assays), but only seven (all Onsite assays) of these changes were concordant with the laboratory immunoassay. In phase 2, seroprevalence among the workforce was estimated to be 10·6% (95% CI 7·6-13·6) in asymptomatic health-care workers and 44·7% (42·0-47·4) in symptomatic health-care workers. Seroprevalence across the entire workforce was estimated at 18·0% (95% CI 17·0-18·9). INTERPRETATION: Although a good positive predictive value was observed with both lateral flow serological assays and ELISA, this agreement only occurred if the pre-test probability was modified by a strict clinical case definition. Late development of lateral flow serological assay bands would preclude postal strategies and potentially home testing. Identification of false-negative results among health-care workers across all assays suggest caution in interpretation of IgG results at this stage; for now, testing is perhaps best delivered in a clinical setting, supported by government advice about physical distancing. FUNDING: None.