Background. Chemotherapy can cause a range of side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and infection, which can have a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life. Survival outcomes can be impacted when side effects are poorly managed, leading to failure to complete the defined dose of treatment. Objective. This study presents clinicians’ experiences with a shared care model involving home-based community nurse (CN) support to improve side-effect management of individuals receiving chemotherapy as an outpatient. Methods. A qualitative study was conducted with CNs, cancer nurses, medical oncologists, and a general practitioner involved in the CN intervention delivered as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed at reducing unplanned presentations to hospital of cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Semistructured individual and focus group interviews were conducted. Key themes were identified using thematic analysis. Findings. Twenty-three healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three themes were identified: (1) being able to enhance patient-centered care and clinical practice during chemotherapy; (2) importance of effective communication and collaborative relationships between different care settings; and (3) ways to adapt the intervention for implementation in routine clinical practice. Participants reported that it was feasible for CNs to care for this patient group, and their home visits enabled preemptive symptom management. Suggestions to improve and modify the intervention to implement this care model within existing clinical care included a flexible approach, such as a blended delivery with face-to-face visits and telephone calls; a risk- or needs-based approach to prioritize patient groups more likely to benefit from the intervention; and sharing of electronic medical records for more effective collaboration and communication. Conclusions. A CN-delivered shared care model provided a feasible approach to the provision of individualized support for outpatients receiving chemotherapy. This study suggests ways to adapt this care model into existing clinical workflow and structures. This trial is registered with ACTRN12614001113640.
We aimed to determine normal thresholds for positive bronchodilator responses for oscillometry in an Australian general population sample aged ≥40 years, to guide clinical interpretation. We also examined relationships between bronchodilator responses and respiratory symptoms, asthma diagnosis, smoking and baseline lung function.Subjects recruited from Sydney, Melbourne and Busselton, Australia, underwent measurements of spirometry, resistance (Rrs6 ) and reactance (Xrs6 ) at 6 Hz, before and after inhalation of salbutamol 200 μg. Respiratory symptoms and/or medication use, asthma diagnosis, and smoking were recorded. Threshold bronchodilator responses were defined as the fifth percentile of decrease in Rrs6 and 95th percentile increase in Xrs6 in a healthy subgroup.Of 1318 participants, 1145 (570 female) were analysed. The lower threshold for ΔRrs6 was -1.38 cmH2O·s·L-1 (-30.0% or -1.42 Z-scores) and upper threshold for ΔXrs6 was 0.57 cmH2O·s·L-1 (1.36 Z-scores). Respiratory symptoms and/or medication use, asthma diagnosis, and smoking all predicted bronchodilator response, as did baseline oscillometry and spirometry. When categorised into clinically relevant groups according to those predictors, ΔXrs6 was more sensitive than spirometry in smokers without current asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ∼20% having a positive response. Using absolute or Z-score change provided similar prevalences of responsiveness, except in COPD, in which responsiveness measured by absolute change was twice that for Z-score.This study describes normative thresholds for bronchodilator responses in oscillometry parameters, including intra-breath parameters, as determined by absolute, relative and Z-score changes. Positive bronchodilator response by oscillometry correlated with clinical factors and baseline function, which may inform the clinical interpretation of oscillometry.
Abstract Purpose The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to explore whether a community nursing intervention for outpatients receiving systemic therapy reduced unplanned hospital presentations and improved physical and psychosocial health outcomes over the first three cycles of treatment compared to a control group receiving standard care. Methods The number of and reasons for unplanned presentations were obtained for 170 intervention and 176 control group adult patients with solid tumours starting outpatient chemotherapy. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of presentations between the intervention and control groups. Patients self-completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Cancer Behavior Inventory and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at the start of the first four cycles. Linear regression techniques were used to compare quality of life outcomes. Results The reduction in unplanned presentations in the intervention group relative to the control group was 12% (95% CI, − 25%, 37%; P = 0.48). At the start of cycle 4, there was no difference in anxiety (difference = 0.47 (95% CI, − 0.28, 1.22; P = 0.22)), depression (difference = 0.57 (95% CI, − 0.18, 1.31; P = 0.13)) or EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score (difference = 0.16 (95% CI, − 2.67, 3.00; P = 0.91)). Scores for self-efficacy as measured by the Cancer Behavior Inventory were higher in the intervention group (difference = 4.3 (95% CI, 0.7, 7.9; P = 0.02)). Conclusion This RCT did not demonstrate a benefit in reducing unplanned presentations to hospital. The trial identified improved cancer-based self-efficacy in patients receiving the intervention. Trial registration Registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614001113640, registered 21/10/2014.
Abstract Purpose The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to explore whether a community nursing intervention for outpatients receiving systemic therapy reduced unplanned hospital presentations and improved physical and psychosocial health outcomes over the first three cycles of treatment compared to a control group receiving standard care. Methods The number of and reasons for unplanned presentations were obtained for 170 intervention and 176 control group patients. Patients self-completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Cancer Behavior Inventory and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at the start of the first four cycles. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of presentations between the intervention and control groups. Linear regression techniques were used to compare quality of life outcomes. Results The relative difference in unplanned presentations between the control and intervention groups was 12% (95% CI: −25%, 37%; P = 0.48) in favour of the intervention. At the start of cycle 4, there was no difference in anxiety (difference = 0.47 (95%CI: −0.28 to 1.22; P = 0.22)), depression (difference = 0.57 (95%CI:−0.18 to 1.31; P = 0.13)) or EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score (difference = 0.16 (95%CI:−2.67, 3.00; P = 0.90)). Scores for self-efficacy as measured by the Cancer Behavior Inventory were higher in the intervention group (difference = 4.3 (95%CI:0.7 to 7.9; P = 0.02). Conclusion This RCT did not demonstrate a benefit in reducing unplanned presentations to hospital. The trial identified improved cancer-based self-efficacy in patients receiving the intervention.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)