The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of Project CLEAR!, a novel simulation-based training program designed to instill Crew Resource Management (CRM) as the communication standard and to create a service-focused environment in the emergency department (ED) by standardizing the patient encounter. A survey-based study compared physicians' and nurses' perceptions of the quality of communication before and after the training program. Surveys were developed to measure ED staff perceptions of the quality of communication between staff members and with patients. Pretraining and posttraining survey results were compared. After the training program, survey scores improved significantly on questions that asked participants to rate the overall communication between staff members and between staff and patients. A simulation-based training program focusing on CRM and standardizing the patient encounter improves communication in the ED, both between staff members and between staff members and patients.
Early in the pandemic, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) surveyed physician leaders at U.S. radiation oncology practices to understand how the field was responding to the outbreak of COVID-19. Surveys were repeated at multiple points during the pandemic, with a response rate of 43% in April 2020 and 23% in January 2021. To our knowledge, this is the only longitudinal COVID-19 practice survey in oncology in the U.S. The surveys indicate that patient access to essential radiation oncology services in the United States has been preserved throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety protocols were universally adopted, telehealth was widely adopted and remains in use, and most clinics no longer deferred or postponed radiation treatments as of early 2021. Late-stage disease presentation, treatment interruptions, PPE shortages, and vaccination barriers were reported significantly more at community-based practices than academic practices, and rural practices appear to have faced increased obstacles. These findings provide unique insights into the initial longitudinal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of radiation therapy in the United States. Downstream lessons in service adaptation and improvement can potentially be guided by formal concepts of resilience, which have been broadly embraced across the U.S. economy.
PURPOSE: The perspectives of patients with cancer about their treatment can inform interventions to improve the approaches of treating oncologists and experiences of future patients. We sought to identify areas where current toxicity management, informed consent processes, and physician-patient communication merit improvement. METHODS: In a Web-based survey administered from March to May 2018 using quota-based sampling to draw a nationwide sample of US patients with cancer treated with radiotherapy within the past 5 years, we evaluated patient perceptions of adequacy of information about adverse effects, severity of actual adverse effects experienced, and experiences divergent from expectations. RESULTS: Among 403 respondents, 18% felt inadequately informed about what adverse effects to expect from radiotherapy, and 37% experienced radiation adverse effects that they wished they had known more about. Similar proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (36%) and surgery (34%) experienced toxicities related to those treatments that they wished they had known more about. Patients who noted their adverse effects to be minimal versus severe were significantly more likely to feel informed about radiotherapy adverse effects (odds ratio, 13.05; 95% CI, 5.6 to 30.38; P < .001). Across all evaluated measures, a majority of patients indicated that they did not experience the potentially anticipated radiotherapy adverse effect or that it was the same as or better than expected. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that experiences with radiation adverse effects generally are congruent with expectations. Nevertheless, improvement of pretreatment counseling across all cancer therapy modalities seems warranted to improve informed decision making and treatment experiences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations –citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.