Search

Objective: Diagnosis of cancer is challenging in primary care due to the low incidence of cancer cases in primary care practice. A prolonged diagnostic interval may be due to doctor, patient or system factors, or may be due to the characteristics of the cancer itself. The objective of this study was to learn from Primary Care Physicians’ (PCP) experiences of incidents when they had failed to think of, or act on, a cancer diagnosis. Design: A qualitative, online survey eliciting PCP narratives. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Setting and subjects: A primary care study, with narratives from 159 PCPs in 23 European countries. Main outcome measures: PCPs’ narratives on the question ‘If you saw this patient with cancer presenting in the same way today, what would you do differently? Results: The main themes identified were: thinking broadly; improvement in communication and clinical management; use of other available resources and ‘I wouldn’t do anything differently’. Conclusion (Implications): To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, PCPs need to provide a long-term, holistic and active approach with effective communication, and to ensure shared decision-making, follow-up and continuing re-assessment of the patients’ clinical conditions.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES: To explore how chronic illness transforms the self when living with and managing chronic illness and what this means for their self and identity. We also discuss how people with chronic conditions could be supported by healthcare professionals to manage illness in daily life. BACKGROUND: Self-management recommendations from health care are commonly based on a biomedical understanding of the disease. People's experiences of how a condition affects them and adequate support are crucial for their outcomes in daily self-management. DESIGN: A narrative review. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken during January 2021 across the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Soc INDEX and Philosopher's Index. A quality appraisal of articles was performed. Our analysis was inspired by qualitative content analysis. The PRISMA Checklist 2020/EQUATOR guidelines was used to report the study. RESULTS: Twenty-eight peer-reviewed qualitative empirical articles focusing on self in a variety of chronic illnesses with relevance to nursing published from January 2010 to December 2020 were included. The main theme, Developing from an uncertain existence to meaning and wholeness, was built up by the five themes: Walking on an unstable ground; Being stalemated; Being involved with others for better or worse; Searching for meaning; and lastly, Modifying self and integrating a new way of living. CONCLUSIONS: The results illuminate experiences that seldom are prioritized but need to be addressed by health professionals. Such experiences are oriented more towards the existential self rather than medical issues, why it is important to go beyond the medical lens. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This is important knowledge for nurses aiming to support people with chronic illnesses. Nurses supporting people in self-management need to be aware that by teaching and encouraging people to revise their daily habits, they also work on the boundaries of their self-concept. PATIENT OR P

Aim: This study aimed to explore the experiences of being a clinical research nurse (CRN), in Sweden. Design: A qualitative study analysing individual interview data. Methods: Interviews with 10 participants were conducted in April 2017 and repeated with five participants in May 2022. A semi-structured interview guide was used to cover topics such as experiences of working in a new role and professional challenges related to the role. The transcribed interviews were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis. Results: The main theme revealed that the CRNs experienced their work role as being like a hub in a wheel, using an ethical compass, but without real power. The six themes identified showed that CRNs worked independently and relied on clinical experiences as nurses but needed more education. They not only had a sense of duty but also too large responsibilities. Furthermore, they viewed their work as valuable and important. However, they needed an accentuated ethical compass and were also affected by power relations that negatively impacted work. Conclusion: Working as a CRN means being in a central position and working independently, which requires diverse skills and competencies. CRNs, however, face and manage complex ethical and practical challenges without real power. They experience huge responsibilities but need education and acknowledgement, indicating a need for improvement. This is an important message to stakeholders and managers about the necessity of taking adequate action to support CRNs who are crucial resources in clinical research. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Objectives: Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice. Methods: We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses. Results: Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information. Conclusions: Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives. Practice implications: A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family’s inheritance pattern explained.

Background: While primary care physicians (PCPs) play a key role in cancer detection, they can find cancer diagnosis challenging, and some patients have considerable delays between presentation and onward referral. Aim: To explore European PCPs’ experiences and views on cases where they considered that they had been slow to think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. Design & setting: A multicentre European qualitative study, based on an online survey with open-ended questions, asking PCPs for their narratives about cases when they had missed a diagnosis of cancer. Method: Using maximum variation sampling, PCPs in 23 European countries were asked to describe what happened in a case where they were slow to think of a cancer diagnosis, and for their views on why it happened. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: A total of 158 PCPs completed the questionnaire. The main themes were as follows: patients’ descriptions did not suggest cancer; distracting factors reduced PCPs’ cancer suspicions; patients’ hesitancy delayed the diagnosis; system factors not facilitating timely diagnosis; PCPs felt that they had acted wrongly; and problems with communicating adequately. Conclusion: The study identified six overarching themes that need to be addressed. Doing so should reduce morbidity and mortality in the small proportion of patients who have a significant, avoidable delay in their cancer diagnosis. The ‘Swiss cheese’ model of accident causation showed how the themes related to each other.

Objective: To compare the diagnostic interval for patients with colorectal cancer before and after the introduction of cancer patient pathways in northern Sweden. Design: A retrospective study comparing two cohorts (2012 and 2018) of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer before and after the introduction of cancer patient pathways in 2016. Setting: Three counties in northern Sweden with large sparsely populated areas and some cities (637143 residents ∼5.1 residents/km2). Subjects: Patients were included from the Swedish Cancer Register. Electronic health records reviews were performed and linked to socioeconomic data from Statistics Sweden. Main outcome measures: Differences in the diagnostic intervals, the patient intervals and the characteristics associated with the longest diagnostic intervals and investigations starting at the emergency department. Results: The two cohorts included 411 patients in 2012 and 445 patients in 2018. The median diagnostic interval was reduced from 47 days (IQI 18–99) to 29 days (IQI 9–74) (p < 0.001) after the introduction of cancer patient pathways in general. Though for the cases of cancer in the right-side (ascended) colon, the reduction of the diagnostic interval was not observed and it remained associated with investigations starting at the emergency department. Conclusion: Our results indicate that cancer patient pathways contributed to an improvement in the diagnostic interval for patients with colorectal cancer in general, yet not for patients with cancer in the right-side colon. Implication: In general, cancer patient pathways seem to reduce the diagnostic interval for colorectal cancer but it is not a sufficient solution for all colorectal cancer localisations.