Managing social difficulties: roles and responsibilities of patients and staff.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of guidance on assessment and management of psychosocial and supportive-care problems or needs will be successful only if consideration is given to existing skills, experience and expectations of staff and patients. This study examines the roles and responsibilities of staff, patients and families in relation to management of social difficulties and proposes a pathway for response. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed using staff and patient interviews. Seventeen doctors and 16 nurses were interviewed using patient scenarios and a support service questionnaire. Patients (n = 41) completed a screening questionnaire (the Social Difficulties Inventory) and were interviewed. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and subjected to a Framework analysis. Analysis examined (1) actions taken by staff and patients in response to social difficulties, (2) reasons given for action taken and (3) perceptions of staff and patients of who was responsible for taking action. RESULTS: Staff were confident concerning clinically related issues (i.e. mobility) but more hesitant concerning difficulties related to money, work and family concerns. Patients liked to cope with problems on their own where possible, would have liked information or support from staff but were uncertain how to access this. Results led to development of a hierarchy of interventions in response to detected social difficulties. DISCUSSION: For routine assessment of social difficulties, patients, nurses and doctors will have to work collaboratively, with nurses taking a lead in discussion. For specific clinically related problems doctors would play a more primary role.

Discussion of emotional and social impact of cancer during outpatient oncology consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Following publication of national guidelines on detection and management of psychosocial problems in oncology, this study explores frequency of discussion of emotional and social issues in outpatient oncology consultations. METHODS: Analysis of baseline data from 212 outpatients participating in a randomized controlled trial. Baseline data included content analysis of audio recordings of consultations, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire subscale scores, and patient and clinician self-rated preferences and perceptions of communication. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent patients and 75% clinicians expressed preferences to discuss emotional issues during consultations. Analysis of audio recordings showed that they were discussed in 27% of the consultations, regardless of severity of emotional problems reported by patients (FACT-G Emotional well-being subscale). Fifty percent of clinicians reported discussing emotional issues 'often' or 'almost always', compared with 18% of patients. Forty-four percent patients and 39% clinicians reported that they would discuss social activities, but they were actually discussed in 46% of consultations. Patients predominantly initiated discussion of emotional and social issues (85 and 60% consultations, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Low prevalence of discussion of psychosocial issues cannot be accounted for by patient or clinician communication preferences. If clinicians rely on patients to initiate discussion of psychosocial issues, patients' problems may go unaddressed.

Routine assessment of social difficulties in cancer patients: are we opening Pandora's box?

GOALS OF WORK: Living with cancer impacts on the social aspects of the lives of the patient and their families, causing problems that can remain undetected. The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI) has been shown as an effective screening tool, but concerns exist that detecting more problems may increase the workload for clinic staff and related services. The aim of this analysis is to assess the level of unmet need for social difficulties and to identify any potential increase in required interventions that may occur as a result of detailed assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A previous cross-sectional interview study was conducted to establish the clinical utility of the SDI. Adult patients were recruited from oncology, haematology and chest medicine clinics. They completed the SDI and a semi-structured interview by a social worker, who was blind to the SDI results. With participant agreement, interventions were made for the detected problems. This paper reports on a secondary descriptive analysis of intervention data, which was performed to examine the details of the interventions and referral patterns. MAIN RESULTS: No intervention was necessary for 108 (59%) of patients, 42 (23%) received information, 33 (15%) were referred to another service and five (3%) received both information and a referral. Most information was provided about holiday insurance. The majority of referrals were made to Social Work (55% of all referrals) with the main reason being related to benefits or finances. CONCLUSIONS: Increased referral rate was observed following a social work interview, when comparing with local audit data. However, the majority of needs could be met by increasing accessibility of information.