Aim The aim of this systematic review is to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of transition interventions to safeguard patient safety and satisfaction during patients' transition from hospital to home health care. Design Systematic review. Data Sources MEDLINE, Ovid Nursing Database, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Clinical Trials and SveMed+ was systematic searched in January 2019 and September 2020 to identify peer‐reviewed papers. No language, geographical or publication date restrictions. Review Methods Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used. Data analysis focused on aggregated data and a descriptive synthesis. Risk of bias was rated using Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool. Results In total, 10,524 references were identified in the literature search, twenty‐six articles were included. The interventions were divided into three main groups: (i). systematic patient education pre‐discharge; (ii). establishment of contact with the local healthcare services pre‐discharge and (iii). follow‐up initiated by nurses from the hospital at home post‐discharge. The studies either used one intervention or combined two or three interventions. We considered the intervention to improve patient safety or satisfaction when they reported statistically significant results. Only four interventions increased both patient safety and satisfaction, seven interventions increased patient safety and thirteen increased patient satisfaction. Interventions that appear to be quite similar, with the same duration, measured different effects on patients' satisfaction and safety. Interventions that ensured patient safety did not necessarily facilitate patient satisfaction and vice versa. Conclusion Interventions can improve patient safety and satisfaction during transfer. However, interventions that improve patient safety or satisfaction do not always match. Impact This review suggests that transition interventions can improve patients' safety and satisfaction. However, to compare the impact of future interventions is it important to use standardized measurement tools of satisfaction. There is a need to try out tailored interventions, where interventions are customized to the needs of each patient.

No abstract

The era of precision medicine and biomarkers is here. Medical science and research on biomarkers have made enormous improvements in medical care for cancer patients, improvements that are highly valuable to patients and their caregivers as well as prestige for medical scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. But do these improvements lead to “good health” for cancer patients? “Good health” is one of the most important things in life, but what is the meaning of “good health” today, how do we talk about health, who is declaring a status of ‘good health’, do modern medicine have limitations in being able to declare ‘good health’, and by which perspectives are “good health” declared? These are all relevant questions to ask when defining and framing health, disease and illness in the era of precision medicine.Ovarian cancer is a serious and highly lethal disease. The different perspectives of health, disease and illness affects the physician-patient relationship and eventually the decision-making. The rapid progress in biomedicine demands knowledge and understanding, but are physicians and cancer patients living in the same world, understanding the same language, or are they all lost in the translation when communicating and understanding illness, disease and above all – health?

Background: Living with ovarian cancer involves uncertainty, fear of recurrence, and premature death while preparing for a life after treatment. The women depend on health care professionals while moving from being healthy to experiencing ovarian cancer. Objective: To explore experiences of women living with ovarian cancer and their interactions with health care professionals. Methods: Five focus group interviews were conducted with the same 4 women, between 2018 and 2020. The interviews were analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results: Living with ovarian cancer involved a set of transitions from health to illness and disease. These transitions were difficult for the women to articulate to health care professionals, friends and family, and to themselves. All participants expressed the experiencing of existential and emotional chaos and paradoxes. As their illness developed, it impacted their ability to articulate changes to their body and sense of self and to their own identity negatively. Consequently, the women felt that their ability to communicate their needs to others, including to health care professionals, deteriorated as the disease progressed. Conclusions: Women living with ovarian cancer experience transitions lost in translation within themselves and in communication with persons in their personal, familial, and medical realms. Implications for Practice: A better understanding of their existential suffering and how it is easily lost in translation may refine care and support for these women throughout their illness and disease trajectory. Foundational: Communicating and understanding illness and disease in ovarian cancer is essential to provide personalized care and support to ovarian cancer patients.