METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 450 nurses from 37 wards in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Nurses on shift duty were recruited by convenience sampling from the Medical, Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Orthopaedic and Paediatric wards. Using a validated questionnaire (Handover Evaluation Scale), nurses self-rated their perceptions using a 7-point scale and provided open-ended responses to the strengths and challenges that they faced. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done while open-ended questions were summarised based on key themes.
RESULTS: A total of 414 nurses completed the survey (92.0% response rate). Nurses had an overall mean (SD) perception score of 5.01 (SD 0.56). They perceived good interaction and support during handover and on the quality of information that they received, with mean scores of 5.54 (SD 0.79) and 5.19 (SD 0.69), respectively. There was an association between the departments where the nurses worked and their overall perceptions on nursing handover (p<0.001). Interruptions being the most common theme emerged from the open-ended section.
CONCLUSION: Despite having substantial interaction and support amongst nurses, opportunities for improvements were noted. Improvements in the quality of handover information and reducing interruptions should be the main emphases as these were perceived to be essential in the current handover practices by nurses.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine perceived involvement and role preferences of patients with hypertension in treatment decision-making.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 patients with hypertension in a teaching hospital in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that their doctor recognized that a decision needs to be made (89.5%) and informed them that different options are available (77.1%). However, respondents' perceived level of involvement in other aspects of treatment decision-making process was low, including in the selection of treatment and in reaching an agreement with their doctor on how to proceed with treatment. In terms of preferred decision-making roles, 51.4% of respondents preferred a collaborative role with their physicians, 44.8% preferred a passive role while only 1.9% preferred an active role. Age and educational level were found to be significantly related to patient preferences for involvement in SDM. Younger patients (<60 years) and those with higher educational level preferred SDM over passive decision-making (ρ < 0.01). Encouragement from health care providers was perceived as a major motivating factor for SDM among patients with hypertension, with 91% of respondents agreeing that this would motivate their participation in SDM.
CONCLUSION: Preferences for involvement in decision-making among patients with hypertension are varied, and influenced by age and educational level. Physicians have a key role in encouraging patients to participate in SDM.
METHODS: Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta-narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high (n = 7), medium (n = 14) to low (n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow-up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism.
CONCLUSIONS: Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.
MAIN BODY: As an exemplar, we reflect on how, in the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR), we set out to create a supportive, organised environment with the overarching value of 'keeping patients at the heart of everything we do'. The key has been in planning and creating a suitably funded organisational infrastructure with dedicated PPI researchers along with the development of and expectation to abide by an agreed set of norms and values. Specifically, expecting AUKCAR PhD students and early career researchers to engage with PPI has established a working mode that we hope will last. Regular interactions and proactive Patient Leads increase PPI network cohesion.
CONCLUSION: With adaptation, the AUKCAR PPI model can be translated to international contexts.
METHODS: The principles of focused ethnography underpinned the study design. Fieldwork took place over six months in one 32-bedded paediatric oncology ward. Twenty-one children, ranging in ages from 7 to 12 years diagnosed with leukaemia, their parents and 19 nurses participated. Data collection consisted of participant observation and semi-structured interview.
RESULTS: Hospitalized children employed different roles of passive or active participants during the communication and decisions about their nursing care. Importantly, children are more likely to become active participants in the communication process when nurses interact directly with them, listening to them and giving them opportunities to ask questions in either the presence or absence of their parents. Equally, children are likely to be more passive participants when nurses do not communicate directly with them, choosing instead to directly interact with the child's parents. This study highlighted that the role of children as active and passive participants is not permanently engaged by individual children, rather their role fluctuates throughout the hospitalization journey. The fluctuations of a child's role are highly dependent on their preferences: how and when they want to be included in the communication and decisions process. Children's roles in communication and decisions are also varied and dependent on their particular contexts. A child's participation in one situation does not consistently reflect their participation with their role in other situations. The ways in which the children participate were oscillated throughout their hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical insight into children's experiences of triadic (child-nurse-parent) interaction during the decisions about their nursing care in paediatric oncological setting. A key recommendation calls for the development of assessment strategies to determine the 'ideal' position children would like to occupy, at any given point in time, throughout their hospitalization.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the parents'/patients' perception on the informed consent process prior to posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Understanding parents/patients perspective on the process is important in order to achieve the goal of consent and prevent medico-legal implications.
METHODS: Fifty AIS patients operated between August 2019 and November 2019 were prospectively recruited. Parents'/patients' perceptions on three sections were evaluated: the process of the informed consent, specific operative risk which they were most concerned with and the accountability of surgeons for the surgical risks. These data were ranked and scored using a 5-point Likert Scale. Preferences were reported in mean and standard deviation. Differences in terms of preferences were studied using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis and deemed significant when P patients preferred the inform consent to be explained more than once (P = 0.021), once during clinic consultation and once during admission (4.2 ± 1.0). Consent taking by both attending surgeons was preferred (4.5 ± 0.6) compared with other healthcare providers, P patients would still hold the surgeon accountable for any complications despite signing the informed consent and they felt that surgeons were directly responsible for screw-related injuries (3.9 ± 0.9), neurological injury (3.8 ± 0.9), and intraoperative bleeding (3.7 ± 0.9).
CONCLUSION: Parents/patients preferred the attending surgeons to personally explain the informed consent, more than once with the use of visual aid. They would still hold the surgeons accountable when complications occur despite acceptance of the informed consent.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
METHODS: A qualitative study with four focus-group discussions was conducted with 20 registered nurses from general wards in a Malaysian public hospital. Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit participants' opinions. NVivo 10 software was used for data management and content analysis was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: Several participants used inconsistent methods to involve patients in bedside handovers and others did not involve the patients at all. The participants' interpretations of the concept of patient-centered care were ambiguous; they claimed that patient involvement during bedside handovers was impractical and, therefore, not reflective of patient-centered care. Some nurses' subjective views of patient involvement as impractical during bedside handovers were manifested in their deliberate exclusion of patients from the handover process.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patient involvement and nursing practices congruent with patient-centered care require that nurse educators in hospital settings reform nursing education to focus on fostering of communication skills needed to function in nurse-patient partnerships. Guidelines for patient involvement consistent with patient-centered values should be developed using ward nurses' subjective views and introduced to all registered nurses in practice.