AIMS: (i) To determine which aspects of living with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line cause Modified de Gramont (MdG) patients most difficulty. (ii) To explore MdG patients' views of the PICC-line experience. (iii) To determine if patients view PICC-lines as a benefit or a burden when receiving ambulatory MdG chemotherapy. DESIGN: A two-stage, descriptive study. METHODS: Phase 1 comprised semi-structured interviews. Phase 2 surveyed the MdG population. Phase 1 interview data informed the Phase 2 questionnaire. The setting was a West of Scotland Cancer Care Centre and the sample was: Phase 1, a convenience sample of 10 MdG patients; Phase 2, 62 consecutive patients. RESULTS: A response rate of 93.9% for Phase 2. The majority of PICC-line patients held favourable views towards having a PICC-line and adapted well with minimal disruption to daily life. Concerns were evident regarding coping at home with a PICC-line, chemotherapy spillage, dealing with complex information and the responsibility of patients/carers regarding PICC-line management. Patients preferred ambulatory chemotherapy to in-patient treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PICC-lines should be considered for more chemotherapy patients but service development is necessary to ensure individual needs are addressed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Contributes to the PICC-line literature by providing a national patient perspective on a range of daily living activities (DLAs). PICC-line patients prefer out-patient ambulatory chemotherapy rather than in-patient treatment. The longer a patient has a PICC-line, the more able they are to manage activities such as dressing. Concerns remain over chemotherapy spillage, partner/carer responsibility for PICC-line maintenance and the proper balance between required information and what the patient wants to know.
AIMS: (i) To determine which aspects of living with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line cause Modified de Gramont (MdG) patients most difficulty. (ii) To explore MdGpatients' views of the PICC-line experience. (iii) To determine if patients view PICC-lines as a benefit or a burden when receiving ambulatory MdG chemotherapy. DESIGN: A two-stage, descriptive study. METHODS: Phase 1 comprised semi-structured interviews. Phase 2 surveyed the MdG population. Phase 1 interview data informed the Phase 2 questionnaire. The setting was a West of Scotland Cancer Care Centre and the sample was: Phase 1, a convenience sample of 10 MdGpatients; Phase 2, 62 consecutive patients. RESULTS: A response rate of 93.9% for Phase 2. The majority of PICC-line patients held favourable views towards having a PICC-line and adapted well with minimal disruption to daily life. Concerns were evident regarding coping at home with a PICC-line, chemotherapy spillage, dealing with complex information and the responsibility of patients/carers regarding PICC-line management. Patients preferred ambulatory chemotherapy to in-patient treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PICC-lines should be considered for more chemotherapy patients but service development is necessary to ensure individual needs are addressed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Contributes to the PICC-line literature by providing a national patient perspective on a range of daily living activities (DLAs). PICC-line patients prefer out-patient ambulatory chemotherapy rather than in-patient treatment. The longer a patient has a PICC-line, the more able they are to manage activities such as dressing. Concerns remain over chemotherapy spillage, partner/carer responsibility for PICC-line maintenance and the proper balance between required information and what the patient wants to know.
Authors: Dhurata Ivziku; Raffaella Gualandi; Francesca Pesce; Anna De Benedictis; Daniela Tartaglini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Paolo Cotogni; Cristina Barbero; Cristina Garrino; Claudia Degiorgis; Baudolino Mussa; Antonella De Francesco; Mauro Pittiruti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kija Malale; Jili Fu; William Nelson; Helena Marco Gemuhay; Xiuni Gan; Zhechuan Mei Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 5.428