'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

Recommendations from GEC ESTRO Breast Cancer Working Group (I): Target definition and target delineation for accelerated or boost Partial Breast Irradiation using multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy after breast conserving closed cavity surgery

OBJECTIVE The aim was to develop a delineation guideline for target definition for APBI or boost by consensus of the Breast Working Group of GEC-ESTRO. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS Appropriate delineation of CTV (PTV) with low inter- and intra-observer variability in clinical practice is complex and needs various steps as: (1) Detailed knowledge of primary surgical procedure, of all details of pathology, as well as of preoperative imaging. (2) Definition of tumour localization before breast conserving surgery inside the breast and translation of this information in the postoperative CT imaging data set. (3) Calculation of the size of total safety margins. The size should be at least 2 cm. (4) Definition of the target. (5) Delineation of the target according to defined rules. CONCLUSION Providing guidelines based on the consensus of a group of experts should make it possible to achieve a reproducible and consistent definition of CTV (PTV) for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) or boost irradiation after breast conserving closed cavity surgery, and helps to define it after selected cases of oncoplastic surgery.

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.