No abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to ascertain prostate cancer patients' perceptions of the quality of physical and emotional support they receive as standard during their course of radiotherapy treatment.Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted on 13 patients undergoing radical radiotherapy treatment for prostate cancer. Interviews were conducted between fractions 32 and 37 and data were analysed using the Giorgi method.Results: A number of themes emerged from the data including, interestingly, the value of patients' place on the 'waiting room support' with 46% finding this to be a positive aspect of their experience. On the whole, patients felt well supported during their treatment by both radiographers and fellow patients. However, the results highlighted areas for further improvements, particularly around bowel and bladder preparation.Conclusions: This small single-centre study has highlighted the importance of good quality, timely information provision. Although patients were, for the most part very happy with the services they were being provided with, areas in need of development where also highlighted. If a more structured review process is to be further investigated then the role of the 'review radiographer' should be considered as part of this. The potential benefits of patient peer support is also worthy of further exploration.

Introduction: Radiation induced skin reactions (RISR) are a common adverse effect of radiotherapy that can impact on patient quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to identify new research evidence on interventions for RISR to guide health practitioners on best practice skin care for people receiving radiotherapy. Methods: A narrative systematic review was adopted including published research since 2014. The MESH search terms used in the 2014 College of Radiographers skin care systematic review were supplemented with terms identified through a pearl growing search technique. Results: Thirty-three studies were identified and reviewed, 13(39.4%) were assessed as having a high risk of bias 6(18.2%) moderate risk of bias, and 13(39.4%) low risk of bias; one pilot study was not assessed. Twenty-one of the studies were randomised controlled trials, 2 feasibility studies, 9 non-randomised trials, and 1 a pilot study. Conclusion: Evidence from well conducted studies identified prophylactic use of steroid cream for patients, at high risk of RISR, as being the most efficacious in reducing acute skin reactions. Further research is needed on photo biomodulation therapy, studied within standard dose fractionation schedules, before it is recommended for use in practice. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of barrier films or any topical emollients currently in practice to reduce RISRs. Despite the number of new studies in this area there is limited good comparative research of RISR that accounts for predictive risk and new radiotherapy techniques. Implications for practice: Practitioners are encouraged to risk assess patients prior to radiotherapy to guide interventions and record and monitor patient skin toxicity regularly during treatment, comparing toxicity changes with scores recorded at baseline and support patient self-monitoring of skin reactions.

Purpose The paper aims to show how using a resource-sharing service can help you provide more resources to your users. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses interlibrary loan challenges and opportunities, specifically with reference to WorldShare Interlibrary Loan. Findings This paper describes the service that connects libraries to the largest cooperative resource-sharing network with more than 10,000 borrowing and lending libraries worldwide, the possibilities for the future, facts and figures and how libraries around the world have used the solution successfully. Originality/value This paper looks at how WorldShare Interlibrary Loan can help libraries overcome the challenges that they face regarding resource sharing.