Quality of care received and patient-reported regret in prostate cancer: Analysis of a population-based prospective cohort

BACKGROUND: Meeting quality of care standards in oncology is recognized as important by physicians, professional organizations, and payers. Data from a population-based cohort of patients with prostate cancer were used to examine whether receipt of care was consistent with published consensus metrics and whether receiving high-quality care was associated with less patient-reported treatment decisional regret. METHODS: Patients with incident prostate cancer were enrolled in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, with an oversampling of minority patients. Medical record abstraction was used to determine whether participants received high-quality care based on 5 standards: 1) discussion of all treatment options; 2) complete workup (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason grade, and clinical stage); 3) low-risk participants did not undergo a bone scan; 4) high-risk participants treated with radiotherapy (RT) received androgen deprivation therapy; and 5) participants treated with RT received conformal or intensity-modulated RT. Treatment decisional regret was assessed using a validated instrument. RESULTS: A total of 804 participants were analyzed. Overall, 66% of African American and 73% of white participants received care that met all standards (P =.03); this racial difference was confirmed by multivariable analysis. Care that included “discussion of all treatment options” was found to be associated with less patient-reported regret on univariable analysis (P =.03) and multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants received high-quality care, but racial disparity existed. Participants who discussed all treatment options appeared to have less treatment decisional regret. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a quality of care metric and patient-reported outcome

Patterns of ‘balancing between hope and despair’ in the diagnostic phase: a grounded theory study of patients on a gastroenterology ward

Aim: The aim of the study was to learn how patients going through the diagnostic phase experienced and handled their situation. Background: Many studies report about the stressful diagnostic phase; however, none has presented a conceptual theory where the concepts are sufficiently related to each other. The Theory of Preparative Waiting has previously been published as a descriptive grounded theory and describes the experience of a group of gastroenterology patients going through the diagnostic phase. Method: A classical grounded theory design was used, with data derived from 18 in-depth interviews with 15 patients in a gastroenterology ward at a Norwegian University Hospital. Interviews were conducted during 2002–2003. Findings: Participants’ main concern was found to be how they could prepare themselves for the concluding interview and life after diagnosis. The theoretical code of ‘balancing’ had four patterns; controlling pain, rational awaiting, denial, and accepting. These patterns of ‘balancing’ guided how participants used the categories of ‘Preparative Waiting Theory’ ‘seeking and giving information’, ‘interpreting clues’, ‘handling existential threats’ and ‘seeking respite’. Patterns were strategies, so one person could use more than one pattern. Conclusion: The diagnostic phase was a difficult time for the participants and the ‘Preparative Waiting Theory’ can assist nurses in assessing how patients prepare themselves differently for getting a diagnosis. All patients would find it helpful to be followed up by a designated contact person at the ward; however, patients using mostly the patterns of controlling pain and denial would benefit most from such support

Uncertainty in breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer: implications for supportive care

Purpose: The aim of this paper was to identify and explore the literature for key aspects of uncertainty experienced by patients who have been diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer. Organizing Construct: Throughout the cancer journey important decisions are made about treatments, symptom control, and supportive care and many approaches have been adopted to examine coping and uncertainty associated with a cancer diagnosis. Uncertainty and its associated attributes, such as stress or anxiety, fluctuate across the disease trajectory. To appreciate the changing nature of uncertainty one should consider its effect on specific patient groups by considering the available evidence. Methods: A comprehensive literature search that was focused on reviews and studies about uncertainty in cancer patients was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL. In total, 40 articles were identified that indicated uncertainty in patients with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, although the emphasis in each differed according to the nature and treatment of the disease. Findings: Uncertainty was found to comprise three main themes: uncertainty because of limited or lack of information, uncertainty concerning the course and treatment choices related to the disease, and uncertainty related to everyday life and coping with the disease. Conclusions: Uncertainty influences patients' experiences of their cancer and their coping. Whilst it might be impossible to avoid uncertainty entirely, its negative effects might be ameliorated by understanding patients' specific needs along the disease trajectory of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer