Changes in professionals' beliefs following a palliative care implementation programme at a surgical department: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: One ambition regarding palliative care is that it should be more accessible to patients and families regardless of care setting. Previous studies show many difficulties and shortcomings in the care of patients with palliative care needs in acute care facilities, but also challenges regarding efforts to implement palliative care. The aim of this study is to evaluate how the implementation of palliative care, using a combination of integration and consultation strategies, can change beliefs regarding palliative care among professionals in a surgical department. METHOD: In order to explore professionals' experiential outcome of an educational implementation strategy, a before-after qualitative design was used. The study was based on three focus group discussions. Two discussions were conducted before introducing the implementation strategy and one was conducted after. The participants consisted of five nurses and two specialist surgeons from a surgical department in Sweden. The focus group discussions revealed a variety of different attitudes and beliefs, which were analysed using qualitative systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Beliefs regarding palliative care were identified in seven areas; the importance of palliative care, working methods in palliative care, team collaboration in palliative care, collegial support, discussions about diagnosis, symptoms at the end of life, and families of patients in palliative care. Changes in beliefs were seen in all areas except one: team collaboration in palliative care. CONCLUSION: It is possible to change the beliefs of health care professionals in a surgical department regarding palliative care through the implementation of palliative knowledge. Beliefs were changed from an individual to a collective development where the group initiated a shared palliative working method. The changes observed were palliative care being described as more complex and participants differentiating between surgical care and palliative care.

Time spans from first symptom to treatment in patients with lung cancer--the influence of symptoms and demographic characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Cancer stage at diagnosis is the most important prognostic factor for lung cancer (LC), but most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease with many and intense symptoms. This study explores relationships between LC patients' first symptoms, symptoms triggering health care system (HCS) contact, demographic/clinical characteristics, and time spans in the care trajectory from first symptom(s) to treatment start. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records were examined from all 314 patients diagnosed with primary LC in 2003 at a Department of Respiratory Medicine, in Stockholm Sweden. Descriptive analysis was used to examine symptoms and time spans in the care trajectory. Cox regression analysis was conducted to explore the influence of symptoms and demographic/clinical characteristics on the time spans. RESULTS: Tumor-specific symptoms led to HCS visits to a greater extent than did systemic symptoms, despite reports of weight loss, fatigue and appetite loss as common first symptoms. Minor differences between women and men were found regarding specific symptoms. The study confirms that the time spans from first symptoms reported to treatment start are extensive, exceeding Swedish national recommendations. A lump/resistance, neurological symptoms, appetite loss, hemoptysis and non-thoracic related pain were associated with significantly shorter time spans in the care trajectory. People >74 years old risked longer time span from first HCS visit to treatment start. CONCLUSION: This study indicates a need for a more efficient LC care trajectory. Elderly patients could be particularly vulnerable for longer time spans.

Framing the onset of lung cancer biographically: narratives of continuity and disruption.

Most patients are diagnosed with advanced lung cancer despite the presence of many and intense symptoms at diagnosis. This qualitative study aims to explore how people with inoperable lung cancer frame and conceptualize the onset of their sickness, to obtain knowledge which might facilitate earlier health care contact for people with potential lung cancer. Patients with inoperable lung cancer were recruited through a larger longitudinal study of 400 patients recruited consecutively from two university hospitals. The narrative analysis presented here is based on 91 narrative segments derived from audio-taped and transcribed qualitative interviews with 37 patients who survived the first year post diagnosis, complemented with data from previous interviews with the same people. Findings indicate a wide array of bodily experiences leading to diagnosis, including symptoms seen as related to other disorders, systemic complaints not conceptualized as symptoms or indications of a serious problem, and more rarely, symptoms triggering immediate action. In addition to the 'biographical disruption' often associated with chronic illness, this analysis indicates an alternative or parallel process involving 'biographical continuity', allowing for integration of past and present aspects of patients' lives.

Symptoms in patients with lung carcinoma: distinguishing distress from intensity.

BACKGROUND: The patient perspective on distress associated with lung carcinoma is important, yet understudied. Previous research on symptom experience generally had not differentiated the dimension symptom intensity/frequency from which symptoms are associated with most distress. The objective of the current study was to determine whether patterns of symptom intensity were similar to patterns of symptom distress, whether patterns were consistent at different time points, whether patterns varied by subgroups, and whether high symptom intensity was equivalent to distress. METHODS: Four hundred adults who were newly diagnosed with inoperable lung carcinoma completed a measure of symptom intensity/frequency and a new measure of distress associated with symptoms at six time points during the first year after diagnosis. These data were supplemented by field notes by research nurses and by less structured, qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The mean ranking of distress in the total group and in all subgroups remained constant at all time points, with breathing, pain, and fatigue associated with the most distress. In contrast, the pattern of mean rank order of symptom intensity showed little consistency; however, fatigue had the highest intensity scores at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: The current data challenged the uncritical use of summated scores of different symptom items in the context of lung carcinoma. Breathing and pain appeared to function as icons representing threats associated with lung carcinoma, with distress described as related to the past and the present and to expectations for the future. One of the most promising implications of these data was in fostering a preventive paradigm for symptom palliation.

Complexity in caring for patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The gap between nursing research and practice is readily acknowledged in literature, with a variety of strategies suggested for reducing this gap. It is necessary not only to address problems of research implementation in practice, but also to find strategies that strengthen the influence of practitioners on research agendas through more collaborative relationships in order to have an impact on care of patients. A multi-centre research project was therefore initiated by two universities and three health care facilities, aiming to improve quality of care for patients with advanced cancer through a knowledge-exchange programme between nurse researchers, practitioners and students. AIM: The aim of this article is to explore how clinical staff reason about care provision for patients with advanced cancer, through analysis of 20 focus group discussions conducted with staff in three different health care facilities in two Swedish cities. An initial analysis based on grounded theory was complemented with consideration of the interactive process in the focus group discussions, and carried out by a team consisting of senior nurse researchers, clinical experts and nursing instructors. FINDINGS: The findings of the focus group discussions emphasize the complexity of caregiving for patients with advanced cancer. The tension between caregiving ideals and limits imposed by the realities of caregiving in today's health system were striking. Practitioners discussed the organization of care, different constellations of relationships between patients, family members and professionals, and theoretical and experiential knowledge as equally important aspects in dealing with all concrete situations in daily practice. The importance of reflective practice, use of self and ethical reasoning also permeated the focus group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight an integrated need both to influence organizational structures and working relationships, along with increasing knowledge, if sustainable change is to be effected.