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.

Implementation of targeted deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: Patients on hemodialysis have a high risk of medication-related problems. Studies using deprescribing algorithms to reduce the number of inappropriate medications in this population have been published, but none have used a patient-partnership approach. Our study evaluated the impact of a similar intervention with a patient-partnership approach. METHODS: The objective was to describe the implementation of a pharmacist-led intervention with a patient-partnership approach using deprescribing algorithms and its impact on the reduction of inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis. Eight algorithms were developed by pharmacists and nephrologists to assess the appropriateness of medications. Pharmacists identified patients taking targeted medications. Following patient enrollment, pharmacists assessed medications with patients and applied the algorithms. With patient consent, deprescription was suggested to nephrologists if applicable. Specific data on each targeted medication were collected at 4 and 16 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the effects of the deprescribing intervention. RESULTS: Of 270 patients, 256 were taking at least one targeted medication. Of the 122 patients taking at least one targeted medication who were approached to participate, 66 were included in the study. At enrollment, these patients were taking 252 targeted medications, of which 59 (23.4%) were determined to be inappropriate. Deprescription was initiated for 35 of these 59 medications (59.3%). At 4 weeks, 33 of the 59 medications (55.9%) were still deprescribed, while, at 16 weeks, 27 of the 59 medications (45.8%) were still deprescribed. Proton pump inhibitors and benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were the most common inappropriate medications, and allopurinol was the most deprescribed medication. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led intervention with a patient-partnership approach and using deprescribing algorithms reduced the number of inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis.