The impact of specialized oncology nursing on patient supportive care outcomes

Meeting the supportive care needs of cancer patients remains a challenge to cancer care systems around the world. Despite significant improvements in the organization of medical care of patients with cancer, numerous surveys of cancer populations demonstrate that significant proportions of patients fail to have their supportive care needs met. One possible solution is the introduction of a care coordinator role using oncology nursing to help ensure that patients' physical, psychological, and social support needs are addressed. Although having face validity, there is little empirical evidence on the effects of nurse-led supportive care coordinator roles on patient reported supportive care outcomes. In this article the authors present the results of a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 113 patients referred to a community-based specialist oncology nursing program. Using validated instruments they found significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes in key supportive care domains: unmet needs, quality of life, and continuity of care, as well as a shift in patterns of health resource utilization from acute care settings to the community over the course of the intervention. The results of this study are important in supporting the design and development of controlled trials to examine provider roles in the coordination of supportive cancer care. Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Does vicarious traumatisation affect oncology nurses?:A literature review

It is widely documented that nurses experience work-related stress [Quine, L., 1998. Effects of stress in an NHS trust: a study. Nursing Standard 13 (3), 36-41; Charnley, E., 1999. Occupational stress in the newly qualified staff nurse. Nursing Standard 13 (29), 32-37; McGrath, A., Reid, N., Boore, J., 2003. Occupational stress in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies 40, 555-565; McVicar, A., 2003. Workplace stress in nursing: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 44 (6), 633-642; Bruneau, B., Ellison, G., 2004. Palliative care stress in a UK community hospital: evaluation of a stress-reduction programme. International Journal of Palliative Nursing 10 (6), 296-304; Jenkins, R., Elliott, P., 2004. Stressors, burnout and social support: nurses in acute mental health settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing 48 (6), 622-631], with cancer nursing being identified as a particularly stressful occupation [Hinds, P.S., Sanders, C.B., Srivastava, D.K., Hickey, S., Jayawardene, D., Milligan, M., Olsen, M.S., Puckett, P., Quargnenti, A., Randall, E.A., Tyc, V., 1998. Testing the stress-response sequence model in paediatric oncology nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28 (5), 1146-1157; Barnard, D., Street, A., Love, A.W., 2006. Relationships between stressors, work supports and burnout among cancer nurses. Cancer Nursing 29 (4), 338-345]. Terminologies used to capture this stress are burnout [Pines, A.M., and Aronson, E., 1988. Career Burnout: Causes and Cures. Free Press, New York], compassion stress [Figley, C.R., 1995. Compassion Fatigue. Brunner/Mazel, New York], emotional contagion [Miller, K.I., Stiff, J.B., Ellis, B.H., 1988. Communication and empathy as precursors to burnout among human service workers. Communication Monographs 55 (9), 336-341] or simply the cost of caring (Figley, 1995). However, in the mental health field such as psychology and counselling, there is terminology used to captivate this impact, vicarious traumatisation. Vicarious traumatisation is a process through which the therapist's inner experience is negatively transformed through empathic engagement with client's traumatic material [Pearlman, L.A., Saakvitne, K.W., 1995a. Treating therapists with vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress disorders. In: Figley, C.R. (Ed.), Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized. Brunner/Mazel, New York, pp. 150-177]. Trauma not only affects individuals who are primarily present, but also those with whom they discuss their experience. If an individual has been traumatised as a result of a cancer diagnosis and shares this impact with oncology nurses, there could be a risk of vicarious traumatisation in this population. However, although Thompson [2003. Vicarious traumatisation: do we adequately support traumatised staff? The Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation 24-25] suggests that vicarious traumatisation is a broad term used for workers from any profession, it has not yet been empirically determined if oncology nurses experience vicarious traumatisation. This purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of vicarious traumatisation and argue that it should be explored in oncology nursing. The review will highlight that empirical research in vicarious traumatisation is largely limited to the mental health professions, with a strong recommendation for the need to empirically determine whether this concept exists in oncology nursing.

The impact of nurse-directed protocolised-weaning from mechanical ventilation on nursing practice: A quasi-experimental study

Background:
Internationally, nurse-directed protocolised-weaning has been evaluated by measuring its impact on patient outcomes. The impact on nurses’ views and perceptions has been largely ignored.

Aim:
To determine the change in intensive care nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes following the introduction of nurse-directed weaning. Additionally, views were obtained on how useful protocolised-weaning was to practice.

Methods:
The sample comprised nurses working in general intensive care units in three university-affiliated hospitals. Nurse-directed protocolised-weaning was implemented in one unit (intervention group); two ICUs continued with usual doctor-led practice (control group). Nurses’ perceptions, satisfaction, knowledge and attitudes were measured by self-completed questionnaires before (Phase I) and after the implementation of nurse-directed weaning (Phase II) in all units.

Results:
Response rates were 79% (n=140n=140) for Phase 1 and 62% (n=132n=132) for Phase II. Regression-based analyses showed that changes from Phase I to Phase II were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Sixty-nine nurses responded to both Phase I and II questionnaires. In the intervention group, these nurses scored their mean perceived level of knowledge higher in Phase II (6.39 vs 7.17, p=0.01p=0.01). In the control group, role perception (4.41 vs 4.22, p=0.01p=0.01) was lower and, perceived knowledge (6.03 vs 6.63, p=0.04p=0.04), awareness of weaning plans (6.09 vs 7.06, p=0.01p=0.01) and satisfaction with communication (5.28 vs 6.19, p=0.01p=0.01) were higher in Phase II. The intervention group found protocolised weaning useful in their practice (75%): this was scored significantly higher by junior and senior nurses than middle grade nurses (p=0.02p=0.02).

Conclusion

We conclude that nurse-directed protocolised-weaning had no effect on nurses’ views and perceptions due to the high level of satisfaction which encouraged nurses’ participation in weaning throughout. Control group changes are attributed to a ‘reactive effect’ from being study participants. Weaning protocols provide a uniform method of weaning practice and are particularly beneficial in providing safe guidance for junior staff.