Search

Rationale: In the Collaborative Network To Take Responsibility for Oral Anticancer Therapy (CONTACT) project, an evidence-based and patient-centred care(PCC) pathway was implemented in 12 oncology departments in Flanders. The care pathway was developed in cocreation by an interdisciplinary project team, and tailored to the local hospital context., Aims and Objectives: In this study, the impact of the care pathways on quality of PCC and other patient outcomes was investigated., Method: A pre-posttest study was performed in nine of the participating oncology departments. The primary outcome was quality of PCC. Furthermore, level of patient self-management, medication adherence, satisfaction with information about the oral anticancer drug and quality of life were measured as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were used to investigate differences in outcomes between the pre- and posttest group., Results: Quality of PCC, as well as all secondary outcomes improved after implementation of the care pathway. However, the changes in pre- and posttest scores were not significant. The overall quality of PCC increased from 3.72 to 3.88, measured on a five-point Likert scale (p = 0.124)., Conclusion: This study showed small, however, no significant improvements in the quality of PCC and other patient outcomes. The lack of significant changes can be attributed to the complexity of the care pathway development, poor or unstable implementation of the care pathway and limited changes in follow-up care. More insight in the actual implementation of the care pathway and potential contextual factors influencing its effect is needed to help understand the outcomes of this pre-posttest study., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Instruments to measure quality of patient-centred care (PCC) for the rapidly growing population of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs (OACD) are lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess PCC in the context of OACD., Methods: The CONTACT-Patient-Centred Care Questionnaire (CONTACT-PCCQ) was developed based on a validated set of key elements (KEs) for patient-centred education and counselling in patients taking OACD, and face validity was evaluated by means of cognitive interviews. In 16 Belgian hospitals, adult patients treated with OACD were asked to complete the questionnaire. Construct validity was investigated through exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) and internal consistency of the subscales was examined using Cronbach's alpha., Results: The initial 86-item instrument was completed by 464 patients. Each EFA confirmed the a priori PCC-based structure of the subscales. However, EFA revealed more than one factor for two of the subscales. Therefore, multiple subsections within these subscales were created. Based on factor loadings and item content, six items were removed. This resulted in a final 80-item instrument with seven subscales and five subsections. Cronbach's alpha for the subscales and subsections ranged between 0.732 and 0.918, which implies adequate internal consistency., Conclusion: A final instrument with 80 items divided into seven subscales, covering all six dimensions of PCC, was obtained. The CONTACT-PCCQ has acceptable psychometric properties, supporting its use as a measure to assess care experiences of patients treated with OACD., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To analyse the importance and performance of key elements in patient-centered care coordination, education and counseling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs., Method: In four Belgian non-academic hospitals, the importance and performance of a set of 82 key elements was cross-sectionally evaluated by primary and secondary healthcare professionals and by patients. These key elements were divided in 6 themes: coordination of care, style and content of patient contacts, medication counseling at treatment initiation, follow-up of treatment, psychosocial support, and involvement of family and friends. Participants were asked to indicate for each key element if it was implemented in the current care process for patients on oral anticancer drugs ('yes', 'no', 'I don't know') and if they considered it important that the component was implemented or would be in the future ('yes' or 'no'). Three levels of performance were defined, based on the number of participants who had answered 'yes' or 'no': 'systematically performed' (≥90% of participants), 'not systematically performed' (≥75% and <90%) and 'not performed' (<75%). Importance-rates were based on the number of 'yes' or 'no'., Results: In total, 85 participants evaluated the key elements. More than half of key elements, 13/82 (15.9%) and 35/82 (42.6%) respectively, were considered as 'not' or 'not systematically performed'. The majority of these elements concerned coordination of care, medication counseling at treatment initiation and follow-up of treatment. Especially key elements on involving primary care and on discussing adherence had low performance rates. Nearly all key elements were assigned an importance score of ≥90%., Conclusions: Performance of key elements of patient-centered care coordination, education and counseling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs proved moderate. Our findings suggest that strategies are needed to prioritize and operationalize key elements to coordinate transmural care and to provide effective education and counseling., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: In the Collaborative Network To Take Responsibility for Oral Anticancer Therapy (CONTACT) project, an evidence‐based and patient‐centred care(PCC) pathway was implemented in 12 oncology departments in Flanders. The care pathway was developed in cocreation by an interdisciplinary project team, and tailored to the local hospital context. Aims and Objectives: In this study, the impact of the care pathways on quality of PCC and other patient outcomes was investigated. Method: A pre−posttest study was performed in nine of the participating oncology departments. The primary outcome was quality of PCC. Furthermore, level of patient self‐management, medication adherence, satisfaction with information about the oral anticancer drug and quality of life were measured as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were used to investigate differences in outcomes between the pre‐ and posttest group. Results: Quality of PCC, as well as all secondary outcomes improved after implementation of the care pathway. However, the changes in pre‐ and posttest scores were not significant. The overall quality of PCC increased from 3.72 to 3.88, measured on a five‐point Likert scale (p = 0.124). Conclusion: This study showed small, however, no significant improvements in the quality of PCC and other patient outcomes. The lack of significant changes can be attributed to the complexity of the care pathway development, poor or unstable implementation of the care pathway and limited changes in follow‐up care. More insight in the actual implementation of the care pathway and potential contextual factors influencing its effect is needed to help understand the outcomes of this pre−posttest study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients who take oral anticancer drugs (OACD) alternate between the hospital and the community setting. Little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) from primary care (PC) can be involved in providing seamless care. In an exploratory qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals from primary and secondary care (SC) and (N = 26) were performed to investigate perceptions of seamless collaboration for patients on OACD. Seamless collaboration initiated by SC was restricted to informing GPs about treatment-initiation and delegating limited tasks to them in treatment monitoring. CPs are currently not informed by SC about the treatment. PC expressed willingness for seamless collaboration. However, collaboration is currently impeded due to an expressed lack of trust and desire for control by SC. Moreover, SC expressed unfamiliarity with the organization of PC. Findings suggest that healthcare professionals from SC and PC need to get to know each other and to discuss expectations in the seamless care for patients on OACD. A possible strategy is to elaborate a shared care model based on a partnership between PC and SC, in which the specific expertise of each partner contributes to patient-centered care and the qualitative and safe use of OACD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this multicenter cross-sectional study, the quality of patient-centered education and counseling for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs was examined. The CONTACT-Patient-Centered Care Questionnaire was administered to 266 patients, recruited in 11 Flemish hospitals. The questionnaire consists of 80 items, each evaluating the degree of performance of a key element in patient-centered education and counseling. In total, 15 key elements were seriously underperformed (degree of performance < 50%). Elements regarding adherence monitoring, specific topics in patient education, and involvement of the community pharmacist and home care nurse received a very low score. Only six key elements were systematically performed (degree of performance ≥ 90%), among which the elements on communication style and involvement of the general practitioner. This study uncovered three major gaps in patient-centered education and counseling of patients on oral anticancer drugs: unmet patient information needs due to shortcomings in patient education, inadequate adherence monitoring, and lacking collaboration with community pharmacists and home care nurses. This study highlights the need for interdisciplinary and patient-centered education and counseling of patients using OACD, including all key stakeholders: physicians, nurses, hospital pharmacists, general practitioners, community pharmacist and home care nurses. • The CONTACT-PCCQ was used to investigate the quality of patient-centered care. • Patient-provider communication proved to be of high quality. • Several areas of low-quality care could be identified. • Rethinking and reorganizing care, considering patients' experiences, is needed. • Initiatives to improve patient-centered care can be guided by these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]