A critical ethnography of communication processes involving the management of oral chemotherapeutic agents by patients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer: study protocol

Aim
To describe the protocol used to examine the processes of communication between health professionals, patients and informal carers during the management of oral chemotherapeutic medicines to identify factors that promote or inhibit medicine concordance.

Background
Ideally communication practices about oral medicines should incorporate shared decision-making, two-way dialogue and an equality of role between practitioner and patient. While there is evidence that healthcare professionals are adopting these concordant elements in general practice there are still some patients who have a passive role during consultations. Considering oral chemotherapeutic medications, there is a paucity of research about communication practices which is surprising given the high risk of toxicity associated with chemotherapy.

Design
A critical ethnographic design will be used, incorporating non-participant observations, individual semi-structured and focus-group interviews as several collecting methods.

Methods
Observations will be carried out on the interactions between healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses and pharmacists) and patients in the outpatient departments where prescriptions are explained and supplied and on follow-up consultations where treatment regimens are monitored. Interviews will be conducted with patients and their informal carers. Focus-groups will be carried out with healthcare professionals at the conclusion of the study. These several will be analysed using thematic analysis. This research is funded by the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland (Awarded February 2012).

Discussion
Dissemination of these findings will contribute to the understanding of issues involved when communicating with people about oral chemotherapy. It is anticipated that findings will inform education, practice and policy.

Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching.

This paper responds to Wassell and LaVan’s paper on the transition from a preservice coteaching experience to independent teaching as a beginning inservice teacher. Wassell and LaVan describe coteaching as an alternative to traditional teaching. In our response, we argue that coteaching can also be applied alongside independent teaching in preservice courses, as opposed to an alternative to independent teaching, which has been shown to alleviate some of the transition issues described by Wassell and LaVan. We then present a critical discussion of different models and vocabularies of coteaching which apply in different sociocultural settings to expand the concept of coteaching. We attempt to extend Wassell and LaVan’s use of Guba and Lincoln’s (Fourth generation evaluation, 1989) authenticity criteria from the research methodology towards considering the criteria also as a framework for coteaching as practice for preservice and cooperating teachers. Finally, we reflect on the role of critical ethnography in Wassell and LaVan’s study in terms of the researchers’ intervention and whether improvements in the transition can be effectively introduced which do not require such intervention. We conclude our discussion with some suggestions to take forward this important work.