Oncology nurses' perceptions about involving patients in the prevention of chemotherapy administration errors

To explore oncology nurses' perceptions and experiences with patient involvement in chemotherapy error prevention.

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.

Improving Communication in Adolescent Cancer Care: A Multiperspective Study.

BACKGROUND Professionals treating adolescents with cancer must communicate well with them and their parents. Evidence suggests that the communication needs of this population are rarely met. Skills training can improve professional communication, but has been criticized for not being based on the experience of the participants in the clinical encounter. We took a multiperspective approach, drawing on perspectives of former adolescents with cancer, patients' parents, physicians, and nurses with the aim to provide suggestions for improvement in communication in adolescent cancer care. METHODS Adolescent cancer survivors (n = 16), parents (n = 8), pediatric oncologists (n = 12), and pediatric oncology nurses (n = 18) participated in 11 focus groups. They discussed their experiences communicating with each other. Transcripts were analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS We identified themes within the following sections: (1) The framework in which professionals communicate with adolescents with cancer (regression in a time of detachment, adolescents' perception and knowledge of illness, cognitive versus legal maturity, "lost in transition" between pediatric and adult oncology); (2) communication difficulties between professionals and patients and parents (professionals and patients/parents identified the other party as the source of difficulties), and (3) effective professional communication (there was some overlap on how doctors and nurses should communicate, along with substantially different expectations for the two professions). CONCLUSIONS The framework within which professionals communicate, the different perspectives on the factors that make communication difficult, and the different expectations regarding good communication by doctors and nurses should be considered when communication skills training courses are developed for professionals who work in adolescent oncology.

Communication skills training in oncology: a position paper based on a consensus meeting among European experts in 2009

Background: Communication in cancer care has become a major topic of interest. Since there is evidence that ineffective communication affects both patients and oncology clinicians (physicians and nurses), so-called communication skills trainings (CSTs) have been developed over the last decade. While these trainings have been demonstrated to be effective, there is an important heterogeneity with regard to implementation and with regard to evidence of different aspects of CST. Methods: In order to review and discuss the scientific literature on CST in oncology and to formulate recommendations, the Swiss Cancer League has organised a consensus meeting with European opinion leaders and experts in the field of CST, as well as oncology clinicians, representatives of oncology societies and patient organisations. On the basis of a systematic review and a meta-analysis, recommendations have been developed and agreed upon. Results: Recommendations address (i) the setting, objectives and participants of CST, (ii) its content and pedagogic tools, (iii) organisational aspects, (iv) outcome and (v) future directions and research. Conclusion: This consensus meeting, on the basis of European expert opinions and a systematic review and meta-analysis, defines key elements for the current provision and future development and evaluation of CST in oncology.

'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.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline update on the use of epoetin and darbepoetin in adult patients with cancer

Purpose To update American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. Methods An Update Committee reviewed data published between January 2007 and January 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results The literature search yielded one new individual patient data analysis and four literature-based meta-analyses, two systematic reviews, and 13 publications reporting new results from randomized controlled trials not included in prior or new reviews. Recommendations For patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy who have a hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 10 g/dL, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians discuss potential harms (eg, thromboembolism, shorter survival) and benefits (eg, decreased transfusions) of ESAs and compare these with potential harms (eg, serious infections, immune-mediated adverse reactions) and benefits (eg, rapid Hb improvement) of RBC transfusions. Individual preferences for assumed risk should contribute to shared decisions on managing chemotherapy-induced anemia. The Committee cautions against ESA use under other circumstances. If used, ESAs should be administered at the lowest dose possible and should increase Hb to the lowest concentration possible to avoid transfusions. Available evidence does not identify Hb levels � 10 g/dL either as thresholds for initiating treatment or as targets for ESA therapy. Starting doses and dose modifications after response or nonresponse should follow US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling. ESAs should be discontinued after 6 to 8 weeks in nonresponders. ESAs should be avoided in patients with cancer not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, except for those with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs with chemotherapeutic agents in diseases associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Table 1 lists detailed recommendations. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and Blood.

American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of epoetin and darbepoetin in adult patients with cancer

Purpose: To update American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. Methods: An Update Committee reviewed data published between January 2007 and January 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results: The literature search yielded one new individual patient data analysis and four literature-based meta-analyses, two systematic reviews, and 13 publications reporting new results from randomized controlled trials not included in prior or new reviews. Recommendations: For patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy who have a hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 10 g/dL, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians discuss potential harms (eg, thromboembolism, shorter survival) and benefits (eg, decreased transfusions) of ESAs and compare these with potential harms (eg, serious infections, immune-mediated adverse reactions) and benefits (eg, rapid Hb improvement) of RBC transfusions. Individual preferences for assumed risk should contribute to shared decisions on managing chemotherapy-induced anemia. The Committee cautions against ESA use under other circumstances. If used, ESAs should be administered at the lowest dose possible and should increase Hb to the lowest concentration possible to avoid transfusions. Available evidence does not identify Hb levels 10 g/dL either as thresholds for initiating treatment or as targets for ESA therapy. Starting doses and dose modifications after response or nonresponse should follow US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling. ESAs should be discontinued after 6 to 8 weeks in nonresponders. ESAs should be avoided in patients with cancer not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, except for those with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs with chemotherapeutic agents in diseases associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Table 1 lists detailed recommendations.

DW-MRI of the urogenital tract: applications in oncology

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) appears to hold promise as a non-invasive imaging modality in the detection of early microstructural and functional changes of different organs. DW-MRI is an imaging technique with a high sensitivity for the detection of a large variety of diseases in the urogenital tract. In kidneys, DW-MRI has shown promise for the characterization of solid lesions. Also in focal T1 hyperintense lesions DW-MRI was able to differentiate hemorrhagic cysts from tumours according to the lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values reported for renal cell carcinomas. Promising results were also published for the detection of prostate cancer. DW-MRI applied in addition to conventional T2-weighted imaging has been found to improve tumour detection. On a 3 T magnetic resonance unit ADC values were reported to be lower for tumours compared with the normal-appearing peripheral zone. The combined approach of T2-weighted imaging and DW-MRI also showed promising results for the detection of recurrent tumour in patients after radiation therapy. DW-MRI may improve the performance of conventional T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative work-up of bladder cancer, as it may help in distinguishing superficial from muscle invasive bladder cancer, which is critical for patient management. Another challenging application of DW-MRI in the urogenital tract is the detection of pelvic lymph node metastases. As the ADC is generally reduced in malignant tumours and increased under inflammatory conditions, reduced ADC values were expected in patients with lymph node metastases.

Diffusion-weighted MRI in head and neck radiology: applications in oncology

Extracranial application of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gained increasing importance in recent years. As a result of technical advances, this new non-invasive functional technique has also been applied in head and neck radiology for several clinical indications. In cancer imaging, diffusion-weighted MRI can be performed for tumour detection and characterization, monitoring of treatment response as well as the differentiation of recurrence and post-therapeutic changes after radiotherapy. Even for lymph node staging promising results have been reported recently. This review article provides overview of potential applications of diffusion-weighted MRI in head and neck with the main focus on its applications in oncology.