Uncovering the challenges of managing cachexia in advanced cancer: Preliminary results from semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in a regional cancer centre

Background: Cancer cachexia is a complex metabolic syndrome characterised by severe and progressive weight loss which is predominantly muscle mass. It is a devastating and distressing complication of advanced cancer with profound bio-psycho-social implications for patients and their families. At present there is no curative treatment for cachexiain advanced cancer therefore the most important healthcare response entails the minimisation of the psycho-social distress associated with it. However the literature suggests healthcare professionals’are missing opportunities to intervene and respond to the multi-dimensional needs of this population.

Objective:The objective of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ response to cachexia in advanced cancer.

Methods: An interpretative qualitative approach was adopted in this study. A purposive sample of doctors, nurses, specialist nurses and dieticians were recruited from a regional cancer centre between November 2009 and November 2010. Data was collection was twofold: two multi-professional focus groups were conducted first to uncover the main themes and issues in cachexia management. This data then informed the interview schedule for the following 25 individual semi-structured interviews.

Results: Preliminary data analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed distinct differences between disciplines in their perceptions of cancer cachexia which influenced their response to it in clinical practice. The commonality between disciplines, with the exception of palliative care, was a reliance on the biomedical approach to cancer cachexia management.

Discussion and Conclusions: Cancer cachexia is a complex and challenging syndrome which needs to be addressed from a holistic model of care to reflect the multi-dimensional needs of this patient group. The perspectives of those involved in care delivery is required in order to inform the development of interventions aimed at minimising the distress associated with this devastating syndrome.

The participation of disabled children, young people and their parents in health and social care. Implications for policy and practice

No abstract available

Managing patient deterioration: evaluation of what works.

Background: Rapid Response Systems (RRS) have been implemented nationally and internationally to improve patient safety in hospital. However, to date the majority of the RRS research evidence has focused on measuring the effectiveness of the intervention on patient outcomes. To evaluate RRS it has been recommended that a multimodal approach is required to address the broad range of process and outcome measures required to determine the effectiveness of the RRS concept. Aim: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the official RRS programme theoretical assumptions regarding how the programme is meant to work against actual practice in order to determine what works. Methods: The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory [1]. This approach used a variety of mixed methods to test the programme theories including individual and focus group interviews with a purposive sample of 75 nurses and doctors, observation of ward practices and documentary analysis. The findings from the case studies were analysed and compared within and across cases to identify what works for whom and in what circumstances. Results: The RRS programme theories were critically evaluated and compared with study findings to develop a mid-range theory to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances. The findings of what works suggests that clinical experience, established working relationships, flexible implementation of protocols, ongoing experiential learning, empowerment and pre-emptive management are key to the success of RRS implementation.  Conclusion:These findings highlight the combination of factors that can improve the implementation of RRS and in light of this evidence several recommendations are made to provide policymakers with guidance and direction for their success and sustainability.References: 1.Pawson R and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publications; LondonType of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

Realist synthesis: Critical care rapid response systems.

Background Rapid Response Systems (RRS) consist of four interrelated and interdependent components; an event detection and trigger mechanism, a response strategy, a governance structure and process improvement system. These multiple components of the RRS pose problems in evaluation as the intervention is complex and cannot be evaluated using a traditional systematic review. Complex interventions in healthcare aimed at changing service delivery and related behaviour of health professionals require a different approach to summarising the evidence. Realist synthesis is such an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions to provide an explanatory analysis of how and why an intervention works or doesn’t work in practice. The core principle is to make explicit the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is suppose to work (ie programme theory) and then use this theory to guide evaluation. Methods A realist synthesis process was used to explain those factors that enable or constrain the success of RRS programmes. Results The findings from the review include the articulation of the RRS programme theories, evaluation of whether these theories are supported or refuted by the research evidence and an evaluation of evidence to explain the underlying reasons why RRS works or doesn’t work in practice. Rival conjectured RRS programme theories were identified to explain the constraining factors regarding implementation of RRS in practice. These programme theories are presented using a logic model to highlight all the components which impact or influence the delivery of RRS programmes in the practice setting. The evidence from the realist synthesis provided the foundation for the development of hypothesis to test and refine the theories in the subsequent stages of the Realist Evaluation PhD study [1]. This information will be useful in providing evidence and direction for strategic and service planning of acute care to improve patient safety in hospital. References: McGaughey J, Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Trinder T. J. & Porter S. (2010) Realistic Evaluation of Early Warning Systems and the Acute Life-threatening Events – Recognition and Treatment training course for early recognition and management of deteriorating ward-based patients: research protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (4), 923-932.

Using Focus Groups to Research Sensitive Issues: Insights from Group Interviews on Nursing in the Northern Ireland “Troubles”

In this article the authors discuss the usefulness of focus groups for researching sensitive issues using evidence from a study examining the experiences of nurses providing care in the context of the Northern Ireland Troubles. They conducted three group interviews with nurses during which they asked about the issues the nurses face(d) in providing nursing care amid enduring social division. Through a discursive analysis of within-group interaction, they demonstrate how participants employ a range of interpretive resources, the effect of which is to prioritize particular knowledge concerning the nature of nursing care. The identification of such patterned activity highlights the ethnographic value of focus groups to reveal social conventions guiding the production of accounts but also suggests that accounts cannot be divorced from the circumstances of their production. Consequently, the authors argue that focus groups should be considered most useful for illuminating locally sanctioned ways of talking about sensitive issues.