Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Objectives: Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care. Method: Participants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi-method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views. Results: Thirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of “Making sense of risk”, “Talking about risk” and “Responding to risk”. Conclusion: Effective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient-centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly

Communicating risk in active surveillance of localised prostate cancer: A protocol for a qualitative study

Introduction One in five men is likely to receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) by the age of 85 years. Men diagnosed with low-risk PCa may be eligible for active surveillance (AS) to monitor their cancer to ensure that any changes are discovered and responded to in a timely way. Communication of risk in this context is more complicated than determining a numerical probability of risk, as patients wish to understand the implications of risk on their lives in concrete terms. Our study will examine how risk for PCa is perceived, experienced and communicated by patients using AS with their health professionals, and the implications for treatment and care. Methods and analysis This is a proof of concept study, testing out a multimethod, qualitative approach to data collection in the context of PCa for the first time in Australia. It is being conducted from November 2016 to December 2017 in an Australian university hospital urology clinic. Participants are 10 men with a diagnosis of localised PCa, who are using an AS protocol, and 5 health professionals who work with this patient group (eg, urologists and Pca nurses). Data will be collected using observations of patient consultations with health professionals, patient questionnaires and interviews, and interviews with healthcare professionals. Analysis will be conducted in two stages. First, observational data from consultations will be analysed thematically to encapsulate various dimensions of risk classification and consultation dialogue. Second, interview data will be coded to derive meaning in text and analysed thematically. Overarching themes will represent patient and health professional perspectives of risk communication. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee, approval 5201600638. Knowledge translation will be achieved through publications, reports and conference presentations to patients, families, clinicians and researchers

Dimensions of safety culture: A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods for assessing safety culture in hospitals

Background The study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes. Methods We included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate. Results A total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with € Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures. Discussion We assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct

Middle manager responses to hospital co-workers’ unprofessional behaviours within the context of a professional accountability culture change program:a qualitative analysis

Background: The critical role that middle managers play in enacting organisational culture change designed to address unprofessional co-worker behaviours has gone largely unexplored. We aimed to explore middle managers’ perspectives on i) whether they speak up when they or their team members experience unprofessional behaviours (UBs); ii) how concerns are handled; iii) the outcomes; and iv) the role of a professional accountability culture change program (known as Ethos) in driving change. Methods: Qualitative, constructivist approach. Five metropolitan hospitals in Australia which had implemented Ethos. Purposive sampling was used to invite middle-level managers from medicine, nursing, and non-clinical support services. Semi-structured interviews conducted remotely. Inductive, reflexive thematic and descriptive thematic analyses undertaken using NVivo. Results: Thirty interviews (approximately 60 min; August 2020 to May 2021): Nursing (n = 12), Support Services (n = 10), and Medical (n = 8) staff, working in public (n = 18) and private (n = 12) hospitals. One-third (n = 10) had a formal role in Ethos. All middle managers (hearers) had experienced the raising of UBs by their team (speakers). Themes representing reasons for ongoing UBs were: staying silent but active; history and hierarchy; and double-edged swords. The Ethos program was valued as a confidential, informal, non-punitive system but required improvements in profile and effectiveness. Participants described four response stages: i) determining if reports were genuine; ii) taking action depending on the speaker’s preference, behaviour factors (type, frequency, impact), if the person was known/unknown; iii) exploring for additional information; and iv) addressing either indirectly (e.g., change rosters) or directly (e.g., become a speaker). Conclusions: Addressing UBs requires an organisational-level approach beyond supporting staff to speak up, to include those hearing and addressing UBs. We propose a new hearer’s model that details middle managers’ processes after a concern is raised, identifying where action can be taken to minimise avoidant behaviours to improve hospital culture, staff and patient safety

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice. Methods The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt. Results Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions. Conclusions Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): A framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

Objectives Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. Design We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. Data sources All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. Eligibility criteria (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements. Data extraction and synthesis Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (A). The A statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. Results Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. Conclusions All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications