Search

Introduction: Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care., Methods and Analysis: We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The COVID-19 pandemic poses daily challenges to the entire oncology workforce. Staff members must absorb multiple executive briefings, adapt to escalating scenario modelling, and seamlessly execute ever-changing operational modes in real-time. The unique threat of looming re-deployment and rationing care add to the uncertainty. We highlight the need for qualitative research to understand the psychosocial impact of these challenges. We posit that the perspective of all team members should be explored: from doctors to ancillary staff., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Activity-based funding (ABF) is a means of healthcare reimbursement, where hospitals are allocated funding based on the number and mix of clinical activity. The ABF model is based solely on Australian refined diagnosis-related group (AR-DRG) classifications of hospital encounters. Each AR-DRG is allocated a weighted activity unit (WAU) translating to cost value to determine ongoing funding allocations for each hospital annually., Aim: We explored cost consequences of AR-DRG coding variances within our Medical Oncology department over a 6-month period., Methods: All inpatient encounters for medical oncology from 1 January to 30 June 2014 were identified and paired with actual AR-DRG coding sheets submitted by the hospital coders. Inpatient charts were manually reviewed by a Medical Oncology Registrar to capture any changes or additional AR-DRGs, which were subsequently evaluated for total WAU value variance. Applying 1 WAU = $4676 as per the 2014 Queensland model, cost consequences were calculated., Results: A total of 116 encounters was identified for 72 patients. Of 116 patients, 95 (81%) had additional diagnoses captured, leading to an AR-DRG and WAU change in 26 encounters. The total reimbursement variance for this period was $143 404.07. Cost consequences resulted from: (i) use of abbreviations in clinical notes unable to be coded; and (ii) diagnoses not documented despite treatment delivered as per medication charts., Conclusion: Clinical note documentation ultimately determines the future funding of our healthcare system. Appropriate communication and education of medical staff and hospital coders are vital to ensure precise documentation and accurate AR-DRG coding for optimal and appropriate reimbursement in this funding model., (© 2019 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Objectives: To improve the experiences of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, there has been an increased emphasis on strengthening cultural awareness and competence in healthcare contexts. The aim of this focus-group based study was to explore how professionals in cancer care experience their encounters with migrant cancer patients with a focus on how they work with cultural diversity in their everyday practice, and the personal, interpersonal and institutional dimensions therein., Design: This paper draws on qualitative data from eight focus groups held in three local health districts in major metropolitan areas of Australia. Participants were health professionals (n=57) working with migrants in cancer care, including multicultural community workers, allied health workers, doctors and nurses. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed in full. Data were analysed using the framework approach and supported by NVivo V.11 qualitative data analysis software., Results: Four findings were derived from the analysis: (1) culture as merely one aspect of complex personhood; (2) managing culture at the intersection of institutional, professional and personal values; (3) balancing professional values with patient values and beliefs, and building trust and respect; and (4) the importance of time and everyday relations for generating understanding and intimacy, and for achieving culturally competent care., Conclusions: The findings reveal: how culture is often misconstrued as manageable in isolation; the importance of a renewed emphasis on culture as interpersonal and institutional in character; and the importance of prioritising the development of quality relationships requiring additional time and resource investments in migrant patients for enacting effective intercultural care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)