Search

Aim: To describe factors that prevent patient safety incidents in connection with the radiological examination from the radiographer's perspective. Background: Radiology plays an important role in the care chain and involves diagnostic examinations and treatments using various radiation sources and different techniques. Risks for patient safety incidents exist in every phase of a radiological examination. Appropriate use of medical imaging requires a multidisciplinary approach involving staff of different categories to meet the medical objectives and the patient's care needs. In accordance with a Safety‐II approach, it is therefore important to understand why things go right and ensure that they do by supporting the conditions for right things to happen. Design: A qualitative study with a descriptive design. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 17 radiographers. The data were analysed using theoretical thematic analysis based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. Results: The analysis yielded 20 sub‐themes, which describe different success factors contributing to patient safety. Conclusion: Proactive work should focus on collaboration and sharing the necessary knowledge, internally and externally, for care in connection with the radiological examination. The radiological and peri‐radiographic knowledge should include monitoring the patient's safety needs before, during and after the radiological examination. The referring clinician has a central role in writing relevant referrals and the radiographer's competence is crucial in monitoring the patient's safety needs. A good patient safety culture is required and working with standards is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, no available tool easily and effectively measures both the frequency, intensity and distress of symptoms among patients receiving radiotherapy. A core symptom set (fatigue, insomnia, pain, appetite loss, cognitive problems, anxiety, nausea, depression, constipation, diarrhoea and skin reaction) has been identified and assessed across oncology research to better understand the pattern of symptoms and treatment side effects. Aim: The aim was to develop a tool measuring the multiple‐symptom experience in patients undergoing radiotherapy and evaluate its psychometric properties (validity, reliability and responsiveness). Design: This study has a prospective, longitudinal and quantitative design. Methods: We developed a patient‐reported outcome questionnaire, the Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale to assess the frequency, intensity and distress associated with symptoms. Patients (n = 175) with brain tumours undergoing proton beam therapy completed the Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale and the health‐related quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ‐C30) during treatment. We assessed the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale and evaluated the validity against QLQ‐C30. Results: There were significant questionnaire–questionnaire correlations regarding selected items, primarily fatigue, insomnia and pain, indicating satisfactory criterion‐related validity. The Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale had fair to good retest reliability. Conclusion: The Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale is a valid instrument for assessing symptom intensity and distress in patients with brain tumour undergoing PBT, with psychometric properties within the expected range. The Radiotherapy‐Related Symptoms Assessment Scale provides nurses with substantial information on symptom experience but requires little effort from the patient. Additional studies are required to further assess the psychometric properties in patients with different cancer diagnoses receiving conventional radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]