ABSTRACT
AIM: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is accepted as best practice in cancer treatment planning and care. Despite recognition of the importance of a team approach, limited data are available about the extent to which MDC has been implemented in Australia. The aim of the audit was to investigate the implementation of MDC for five main cancer types across Australia in line with best practice. METHODS: A sample of 155 hospitals was surveyed to investigate the status of MDC for cancer treatment planning in Australia across five cancer types (breast, gynecological, lung, prostate and colorectal). The survey investigated team structure, meetings, patient consent, documentation of team recommendations and communication with the patient. RESULTS: Two-thirds of hospitals surveyed did not have a multidisciplinary team. Of those with such a team; in one-third patients were not informed their case would be discussed by the team, in half patient consent was not sought for all cases discussed by the team, in one-quarter the team's recommended treatment plan was not noted in the patient record. Less than 1% of teams reported routine attendance by the tumour-specific minimum core team. CONCLUSION: MDC is not being implemented in line with best practice or applied consistently across Australia. This audit has highlighted gaps in care delivery, despite national recommendations about MDC. Areas being neglected can affect the quality of care provided and may put clinicians at medico-legal risk. Recommendations to improve uptake and effectiveness of MDC are provided.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/standards , Interdisciplinary Communication , Medical Audit/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Care Planning/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/legislation & jurisprudence , Cancer Care Facilities , Case Management , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Humans , Patient Care Planning/ethics , Patient Care Planning/standardsABSTRACT
Across all sectors of the behavioral health field there has been growing concern about a workforce crisis. Difficulties encompass the recruitment and retention of staff and the delivery of accessible and effective training in both initial, preservice training and continuing education settings. Concern about the crisis led to a multiphased, cross-sector collaboration known as the Annapolis Coalition on the Behavioral Health Workforce. With support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, this public-private partnership crafted An Action Plan for Behavioral Health Workforce Development. Created with input from a dozen expert panels, the action plan outlines seven core strategic goals that are relevant to all sectors of the behavioral health field: expand the role of consumers and their families in the workforce, expand the role of communities in promoting behavioral health and wellness, use systematic recruitment and retention strategies, improve training and education, foster leadership development, enhance infrastructure to support workforce development, and implement a national research and evaluation agenda. Detailed implementation tables identify the action steps for diverse groups and organizations to take in order to achieve these goals. The action plan serves as a call to action and is being used to guide workforce initiatives across the nation.
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders/rehabilitation , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Staff Development/organization & administration , Substance-Related Disorders/rehabilitation , Adult , Child , Comorbidity , Health Care Coalitions/organization & administration , Health Planning Technical Assistance/organization & administration , Health Services Research/organization & administration , Humans , Leadership , Medically Underserved Area , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Organizational Objectives , Patient Participation , Personnel Selection/organization & administration , Policy Making , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Professional Competence , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Self Care , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , United States , WorkforceABSTRACT
Concerns about medicolegal implications of a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care may act as a barrier to the implementation of best practice approaches. While multidisciplinary meetings carry a low level of medicolegal risk, improved documentation and transparency in approach will assist in limiting liability for individual health professionals and health services. The medicolegal implications of a multidisciplinary approach are not affected by whether a health professional bills the patient for attendance at multidisciplinary meetings.
Subject(s)
Benchmarking/legislation & jurisprudence , Consensus Development Conferences as Topic , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Care Planning/organization & administration , Australia , Benchmarking/standards , Documentation , Humans , Informed Consent , Patient Care Planning/ethics , Patient Care Planning/standardsABSTRACT
This article discusses the utilization of King's conceptual system, transaction process model, and theory of goal attainment as foundations for an advance directive decision-making model. Research has shown nurses may be educationally unprepared, experience conflicts between beliefs and actions, or resist the responsibility to address advance directives and end-of-life issues. Nurses, especially nurse practitioners providing primary care, are in positions to facilitate the process. By understanding and incorporating this model into practice, both the nurse and the client may achieve mutual goal attainment resulting in both increased client autonomy and Patient Self-Determination Act compliance.
Subject(s)
Advance Directive Adherence/psychology , Clinical Nursing Research , Decision Making , Humans , Models, Psychological , Nurse PractitionersABSTRACT
In brief Effort thrombosis usually afflicts an extremity and is caused by compression. This case report, in contrast, involves superior mesenteric and left portal vein septic thrombosis in a backpacker following prolonged hiking and abdominal straining. The condition may have been caused by localized splanchnic venous ischemia, erosion of the bowel-blood barrier, and release of bacterial endotoxin in this dehydrated and detrained athlete. Diagnosis of this disorder is aided by noting characteristic abdominal pain, fever, nausea, and vomiting, as well as by imaging with MRI, CT, or duplex ultrasonography. Antibiotics and anticoagulants are key to treatment.
