To see or not to see - or to wait and see: clinical decisions in an oncological emergency telephone consultation.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is often given on an outpatient basis. An oncological emergency telephone line has been established to improve access to cancer care and prevent life-threatening side effects. However, healthcare professionals need to make clinical decisions without being able to assess patients face-to-face, which may be problematic. This study explores how healthcare professionals experience clinical decision-making in oncological emergency telephone consultations. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative approach applying three focus groups with healthcare professionals from a Danish university hospital were undertaken. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: An overall theme elucidated how healthcare professionals ended up deciding during each call whether the problem could be solved on the phone or the patient had to come for a face-to-face consultation or to wait and see whether the condition changed. Some decisions were easy to make, while others were moderate or difficult. The decision was influenced by several factors that could be structured into three themes: reliance on one's own knowledge and experience, consideration of different perspectives and the influence of context. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that clinical decision-making in oncological emergency telephone consultations includes three types of decisions that are intertwined with intra-personal, inter-professional and contextual factors such as personal knowledge, collaboration and workload. These factors are essential for the timely referral of patients to the right level of service.

Calling an Oncological Emergency Telephone to Seek Advice: An Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is increasingly provided on an outpatient basis, which may challenge patients and caregivers coping with illness and adverse effects at home. A telephone consultation is an accepted type of healthcare provision to support patients and prevent adverse outcomes when their capacity to self-manage is inadequate. Whether this option for help sufficiently supports patients needs further investigation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore patients' and caregivers' experience of calling an oncological emergency telephone. METHODS: The study applies a phenomenological hermeneutic approach with 12 semistructured interviews. Patients and caregivers who had called the oncological emergency telephone within the last 2 months were included. The interview texts were analyzed by content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers perceive the emergency telephone as a lifeline that they consider calling when the patient's condition changes from what they understand as normal to what they perceive as abnormal. They would rather call "one time too many than one time too few" if their resources are inadequate to ensure their safety. The tone, attitude, and professional competency of healthcare providers affect patients' experience of the call. CONCLUSIONS: The value of calling the oncological emergency telephone depends on the healthcare providers' professional competences and skills to establish a relationship that makes patients feeling accommodated and taken care of. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients' and caregivers' perceptions of what constitutes a good telephone consultation represent significant knowledge that contributes to a more comprehensive and practice-based understanding of what is required to advise patients and caregivers in an oncological emergency telephone.

Managing the absent clinical eye in calls to an oncological emergency telephone - a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Telephone consultations are common in supporting patients and caregivers in managing symptoms from cancer diseases and side effects from cancer treatment. In connection with telephone consultations, it may be a challenge that healthcare professionals have to rely on their auditory sense alone when they assess whether the problem can be solved over the telephone, or whether patients need an examination face to face. OBJECTIVE: To explore how healthcare professionals identify patients' essential concerns and assess serious conditions in calls to an oncological emergency telephone without face-to-face contact. METHODS: From a phenomenological-hermeneutical frame of reference, the analysis of three focus groups with a total of 16 healthcare professionals was guided by content analysis. ETHICS: The study follows the ethical guidelines for research. RESULTS: Two themes emerged. To identify patients in serious conditions, healthcare professionals kept focus on: (1) 'Reaching a mutual understanding without the clinical eye'. Before making a decision regarding a face-to-face examination, the healthcare providers were as follows: (2) 'Listening to an inner voice - attention on clues and signs'. LIMITATIONS: The transferability of the findings is limited to healthcare professionals who perform telephone-mediated care in a team of nurses and physicians. CONCLUSION: Staying open for diverse perspectives and integrating nonanalytical as well as analytical illness scripts, healthcare professionals were able to identify patients that needed further examination face to face.