PURPOSE To explore the cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship experiences of Aboriginal people in the Gippsland region, Victoria, Australia, and identify factors critical to the development of a culturally appropriate cancer survivorship model of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS Yarning circles were used to capture the stories of 15 people diagnosed with cancer and/or those of family members. Yarning circles were conducted in two locations in the Gippsland region. Sessions were facilitated by an Aboriginal Elder, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of the data were triangulated among three researchers and incorporated researcher reflexivity. RESULTS Cultural connections and family were critical supports on the cancer journey. Putting the needs of the family first and caring for sick family members were more important than an individual’s own health. There was “no time to grieve” for one’s own cancer diagnosis and look after oneself. Cancer was a private experience; however, the constancy of deaths highlighted the importance of raising family awareness. Health professionals did not always understand the importance of people’s cultural and family supports in their treatment and recovery. There were negatives attitudes in hospitals when family come to visit, seeing family as too large and overstaying visiting times. Health professionals did not seek family assistance with communication of information to family members whose literacy level was low, nor did they include family in treatment decision-making. Access to services depended on family support with transport, finances, and family responsibilities, often resulting in lapses in treatment and follow-up services. CONCLUSION Understanding the importance of Aboriginal peoples’ cultural and family connections can help to inform the development of culturally safe cancer survivorship models of care.

No abstract

With current psychosocial guidelines recommending routine supportive care screening of patients with cancer and statewide mandatory screening targets set in Australia, healthcare organizations need to carefully consider implementation processes. Although nurses are ideally placed to complete screening, organizations need to ensure that appropriate training and support mechanisms have been developed, as well as adequate resources, to enable integration into routine practice.

Objective The aim of the present study was to compare lung cancer diagnostic and treatment intervals with agreed target measures across three large public health services in Victoria and assess any differences in interval times by treatment type and health service. Methods A retrospective medical record audit of 78 patients admitted with a new diagnosis of lung cancer was conducted. Interval times from referral to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment and referral to first treatment were recorded in three treatment types: surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Results There was a significant difference in the mean number of days from referral to diagnosis by treatment type. Patients who underwent surgery waited significantly longer (mean (± s.d.) 41.6±38.4 days) to obtain a diagnosis than those who received radiotherapy (15.1±18.6 days). Only 47% of surgical patients obtained a diagnosis within the recommended 28 days. Moreover, only 45% and 44% of patients, respectively, met the diagnosis-to-treatment target of 14 days and referral-to-treatment target of 42 days. Conclusion The present study highlights the effect of treatment type on lung cancer referral interval times. It demonstrates the benefits of using evidenced-based interval target times to benchmark and compare performance outcomes in lung cancer. What is known about the topic? Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia and has the lowest 5-year survival rate of all cancer types. Delays in the diagnosis of lung cancer can change the prognosis from potentially curable to incurable, particularly in faster-growing tumours. What does this paper add? This study reveals treatment type was a greater factor in explaining variations in diagnosis and treatment than health service. Surgical patients were consistently lower in meeting the recommended interval targets across referral to diagnosis, diagnosis to treatment and referral to treatment. What are the implications for practitioners? This study demonstrates the value of using evidenced-based interval target times to benchmark and compare performance outcomes in lung cancer. Such measures may further improve prognostic outcomes in lung cancer by reducing unwanted delays.

No abstract