This is the first study to quantify the effect of ICU environment on family and patient satisfaction. Family and patient satisfaction with ICU experience increased by 6 % in the new ICU environment with noise-reduced, single rooms with daylight, adapted colouring and improved family facilities.

After completing this course, the reader will be able to:1. Enumerate reasons for a patient-centered model of care and plan changes in your practice/facility consistent with patient-centered care.2. Differentiate between the general preferences of male and female cancer patients and tailor care of individual patients accordingly.This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com. CME CME ABSTRACTAim. Improving quality of care for cancer patients requires insight into their specific wishes, needs, and preferences concerning cancer care. The Oncologist CME Program is located online at http://cme.theoncologist.com/. To take the CME activity related to this article, you must be a registered user. Symptom Management and Supportive CareThe and attitude of physicians and nurses highest on their list of preferences. There were significant differences between male and female patients concerning preferences in health care in 15 of the 21 scales and in two of the eight single items. Without exception, women found the care aspects mentioned in these scales and items more important than men. Multivariate regression analysis showed that, of all the patient-and diseaserelated factors, gender was the most important independent predictor of patient preferences. Conclusion.Gender impacts cancer patients' needs and preferences and should be taken into account for optimal cancer care. Cancer care might be tailored toward gender, for example, with regard to the means and extent of communication, manner and extent of support, counseling and rehabilitation, consultation length, and physician assignment. The results of this study may guide health care professionals and organizations to develop a gender-specific health care approach to further improve cancer patientcentered care. The Oncologist 2010;15:648 -655

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to generate information about a patient’s tumour and personal genome. This powerful diagnostic tool provides solicited and unsolicited hereditary genetic (risk) information that could have consequences for cancer patients and their quality of life. A well-defined approach for returning appropriate genetic risk information is needed in personalized cancer care. A qualitative design with semi-structured interviews was used. We conducted interviews with 24 Dutch patients with different types of cancer, both NGS-experienced and NGS-inexperienced, to learn their intentions, needs and preferences towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using NGS. Almost all participants had a positive attitude towards receiving unsolicited findings. After receiving comprehensive background information on NGS, including a binning model of four categories of unsolicited findings, most participants preferred to receive only subsets of genetic information. Their main concern was their own and others’ (including family members) ability to cope with (the increased risk of having) a genetic disorder. Providing background information gave cancer patients the opportunity to select subsets of findings and increased their ability to make an informed choice. Special attention is needed for social and emotional factors to support the patients themselves and when communicating test results with their family members.

BackgroundElectronic applications are increasingly being used in hospitals for numerous purposes.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess differences in the characteristics of patients who choose paper versus electronic questionnaires and to evaluate the data quality of both approaches.MethodsBetween October 2012 and June 2013, 136 patients participated in a study on diagnosis-induced stress and anxiety. Patients were asked to fill out questionnaires at six different moments during the diagnostic phase. They were given the opportunity to fill out the questionnaires on paper or electronically (a combination of tablet and Web-based questionnaires). Demographic characteristics and completeness of returned data were compared between groups.ResultsNearly two-thirds of patients (88/136, 64.7%) chose to fill out the questionnaires on paper, and just over a third (48/136, 35.3%) preferred the electronic option. Patients choosing electronic questionnaires were significantly younger (mean 47.3 years vs mean 53.5 in the paper group, P=.01) and higher educated (P=.004). There was significantly more missing information (ie, at least one question not answered) in the paper group during the diagnostic day compared to the electronic group (using a tablet) (28/88 vs 1/48, P<.001). However, in the week after the diagnostic day, missing information was significantly higher in the electronic group (Web-based questionnaires) compared to the paper group (41/48 vs 38/88, P<.001).ConclusionsYounger patients and patients with a higher level of education have a preference towards filling out questionnaires electronically. In the hospital, a tablet is an excellent medium for patients to fill out questionnaires with very little missing information. However, for filling out questionnaires at home, paper questionnaires resulted in a better response than Web-based questionnaires.

The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of what cancer patients consider important and what may motivate and influence them when making decisions on the disclosure of unsolicited findings following NGS. We show how Joel Feinberg's classification of autonomy may help clinicians to better understand cancer patients' desire for autonomous decision making while also acknowledging the emotional and cognitive difficulties regarding the disclosure of unsolicited findings. These insights could be helpful for clinicians to guide patients through this complex process.