Patient Involvement: A New Source of Stress in Health Care Work?

Patients have become increasingly well informed with higher expectations to be involved in decision-making processes regarding their care and treatment. However, few studies have examined the impact of patient involvement on health care providers’ partnership-building communication. The aim of this study was to measure and explore the self-reported effects of patient involvement on the work of physicians and nurses. A questionnaire survey was distributed among cardiology staff in 12 Swedish hospitals (N = 488, response rate 67%). The sample was comprised of registered nurses (RNs, n = 303), licensed practical nurses (LPNs, n = 132), and physicians (MDs, n = 53). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine seven questionnaire statements concerning implications of patient involvement for one’s clinical work. Regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with staff’s partnership-building communication. Analysis confirmed two distinct factors accounting for 57% of the total variance, representing both negative—“Hassles”—and positive—“Uplifts”—aspects of patient involvement. Regression analyses revealed that only positive aspects (i.e., uplifts) of patient involvement predicted staff behavior aimed at involving patients. Working with actively involved patients may be a source of stress, both negative and positive, for health care professionals. By developing work routines for involving patients in their care, health care workplaces may help health care professionals to buffer the negative effects, and enhance the positive effects, of that stress.     

Maximizing Breast Cancer Therapy with Awareness of Potential Treatment-Related Blood Disorders

In this review we summarize the impact of the various modalities of breast cancer therapy coupled with intrinsic patient factors on incidence of subsequent treatment-induced myelodysplasia and acute myelogenous leukemia (t-MDS/AML). It is clear that risk is increased for patients treated with radiation and chemotherapy at younger ages. Radiation is associated with modest risk, whereas chemotherapy, particularly the combination of an alkylating agent and an anthracycline, carries higher risk and radiation and chemotherapy combined increase the risk markedly. Recently, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not pegylated G-CSF, has been identified as a factor associated with increased t-MDS/AML risk. Two newly identified associations may link homologous DNA repair gene deficiency and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment to increased t-MDS/AML risk. When predisposing factors, such as young age, are combined with an increasing number of potentially leukemogenic treatments that may not confer large risk singly, the risk of t-MDS/AML appears to increase. Patient and treatment factors combine to form a biological cascade that can trigger a myelodysplastic event. Patients with breast cancer are often exposed to many of these risk factors in the course of their treatment, and triple-negative patients, who are often younger and/or BRCA positive, are often exposed to all of them. It is important going forward to identify effective therapies without these adverse associated effects and choose existing therapies that minimize the risk of t-MDS/AML without sacrificing therapeutic gain.

Implications for Practice

Breast cancer is far more curable than in the past but requires multimodality treatment. Great care must be taken to use the least leukemogenic treatment programs that do not sacrifice efficacy. Elimination of radiation and anthracycline/alkylating agent regimens will be helpful where possible, particularly in younger patients and possibly those with homologous repair deficiency (HRD). Use of colony-stimulating factors should be limited to those who truly require them for safe chemotherapy administration. Further study of a possible leukemogenic association with HRD and the various forms of colony-stimulating factors is badly needed.

     

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial—Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists.

Methods

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

     

International survey of peritoneal dialysis training programs.

OBJECTIVE: To survey nurses around the world about current practices for peritoneal dialysis (PD) home training programs. DESIGN: Random sampling of nurses to complete a written survey from the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis Nursing Liaison Committee. Settings: United States, Canada, South America (Brazil, Columbia), The Netherlands, Hong Kong. METHODS: Surveys and responses were sent by fax whenever possible, or by regular mail, or hand carried, or conducted by telephone. Results were stratified by geographic areas as well as by cumulative responses and were expressed as medians with ranges. Kruskal-Wallis was used to evaluate differences in responses. Associations between variables were tested with Pearson correlation. Univariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of variables on peritonitis rates. Variables with p < 0.10 were included in a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 317 nurses responded: 88 in the United States, 46 in Canada, 58 in South America, 58 in Hong Kong, and 67 in The Netherlands. This represented 37% of all surveys distributed. Respondents had a median of 12 years' experience in nephrology (range 1-35 years), but only 31% had a formal background in adult education. Nearly half received their guidance to patient training from a nurse colleague, 11% were guided by a corporate colleague, and 8% were simply self-taught. Clinics responding had a median of 30 PD patients (range 1-400) and reported they trained a median of 8 patients per year (range 0-86). Reported peritonitis rates were a median 0.46 per year or 1 episode every 26 months. Peritonitis rates, however, were not known by 53% of respondents. Total training time per patient had a very wide range of hours, from 6 to 96. There was no correlation between training time and peritonitis rates among the study respondents (p = 0.38), nor with any other variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in practices for PD patient training programs within countries and around the world. Training time did not appear to be related to peritonitis rates. Randomized trials of training practices are needed to determine which approaches produce the best outcomes for patients.