-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The study objective was to develop and evaluate a template for evidence-informed symptom protocols for use by nurses over the telephone for the assessment, triage, and management of patients experiencing cancer treatment-related symptoms. Guided by the CAN-IMPLEMENT© methodology, symptom protocols were developed by, conducting a systematic review of the literature to identify clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, appraising their quality, reaching consensus on the protocol template, and evaluating the two symptom protocols for acceptability and usability. After excluding one guideline due to poor overall quality, the symptom protocols were developed using 12 clinical practice guidelines (8 for diarrhea and 4 for fever). AGREE Instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) rigour domain subscale ratings ranged from 8% to 86% (median 60.1 diarrhea; 40.5 fever). Included guidelines were used to inform the protocols along with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System questionnaire to assess symptom severity. Acceptability and usability testing of the symptom populated template with 12 practicing oncology nurses revealed high readability ( = 12), just the right amount of information ( = 10), appropriate terms ( = 10), fit with clinical work flow ( = 8), and being self-evident for how to complete ( = 5). Five nurses made suggestions and 11 rated patient self-management strategies the highest for usefulness. This new template for symptom protocols can be populated with symptom-specific evidence that nurses can use when assessing, triaging, documenting, and guiding patients to manage their-cancer treatment-related symptoms.
Nursing research and practice. 01/2013; 2013:171872.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A survey of 368 Canadian oncology nurses revealed that 54% provided remote support to oncology patients. The most common symptoms identified were fatigue, pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. Frequent symptoms which nurses felt low confidence in managing were anxiety, neuropathy, depression, anorexia and skin alterations. Most nurses agreed that guidelines were needed that were accessible, and improved continuity of care. Forty-three per cent of respondents felt that existing guidelines were inadequate for complex symptoms. Only 54% of respondents agreed they had received enough symptom management training. Common barriers included time constraints, obtaining accurate patient information via telephone, high workloads and knowledge or training deficits. Facilitating factors for provision of remote support included access to an electronic health record, accessible team members, available technology and ease of documentation.
Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique 01/2012; 22(4):235-47.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinicians are interested in options for delivering community-based wound care. Studies have largely focused on nurse clinics as an alternative to people receiving wound care at home. A prospective, two-arm, cohort study of individuals who requested and received their preference for community-based leg ulcer care delivered in either their home or in a nurse-led clinic was conducted to explore the relationship between choice of care location and health outcomes. Provision of care was similar-ie, care was guided by an evidence-informed protocol and a trained nursing team. Individual and system level outcomes were compared between the groups, including 3-month healing rates, 1-year ulcer recurrence rate, time free of ulcers, health-related quality of life (HRQL), satisfaction with care, and resource use. Following the baseline assessment, data were collected every 3 months until healing occurred plus a 1-year follow-up to monitor recurrence. Of the 104 participants (average age 67.5 years), 56 chose home and 48 chose clinic-based care. More than half (55%) of the participants were men, 53.8% had an ulcer <5 cm(2) and <6 months' duration, 84% were English-speaking, and 51.9% had a previous episode of ulceration. No significant sociodemographic, HRQL, or clinical characteristic differences were found between groups at baseline. A trend toward improved healing for those choosing clinic care was observed (3-month healing rates at home were 48.1% versus clinic care 66.7%, P = 0.07) but neither healing outcome nor other variables, including resource utilization, were significantly different and post-hoc analysis revealed only 48% power to detect a difference in healing. The results confirm previous research indicating that the organization rather than the location of care is most important; however, observed differences in healing rates pose an important question for future inquiry regarding the potential impact of choice and whether the quality of care is standardized and delivered by the same team. The concept of providing individuals/families with the choice of care location warrants further research.
Ostomy/wound management 08/2011; 57(8):38-45. · 1.08 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background. Missing data are a significant problem in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research. We evaluated two imputation approaches: missing data estimation (MDE) and assignment of mean score (AMS). Methods. HRQOL data were collected using the Medical Outcomes Trust SF-12. Missing data were estimated using both approaches, summary statistics were produced for both, and results were compared using intraclass correlations (ICC). Results. Missing data were imputed for 21 participants. Mean values were similar, with ICC >.99 within both the Physical Component Summary and the Mental Component Summary when comparing the two methodologies. When imputed data were added into the full study sample, mean scores were identical regardless of methodology. Conclusion. Results support the use of a practical and simple imputation strategy of replacing missing values with the mean of the sample in cross-sectional studies when less than half of the required items of the SF-12 components are missing.
ISRN nursing. 01/2011; 2011:752320.
