Martina Cusack1, Claire Taylor. 1. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Hammersmith, UK. martina.cusack@imperial.nhs.uk
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this review is to examine the potential of telephone follow-up for patients with colorectal cancer. BACKGROUND: More people are surviving cancer and entering into follow-up care. It is recognised that improvements in cancer follow-up care are needed in the UK. Telephone use has proved a very successful medium for conducting health care in other specialties and may offer an acceptable alternative to face-to-face follow-up appointments. Nurse specialists could assume responsibility for patients' follow-up by offering telephone consultations. DESIGN: A literature review was conducted via a systematic electronic and hand search of relevant literature. METHOD: Thematic content analysis was used to achieve the objectives of the review. Results. The findings demonstrate that telephone follow-up conducted by an experienced nurse specialist is cost-effective and accepted by the majority of patients. Aspects of care such as symptom management and reassurance are possible over the phone. CONCLUSION: Telephone follow-up meets patients' satisfaction, support and information needs and has potential to deliver high standards of aftercare when conducted by a nurse specialist. It is at least equivalent to traditional follow-up in meeting the needs of patients with cancer. Because of the disparity of the studies examined, further research in the area of nurse-led telephone follow-up vs. nurse-led traditional follow-up would be constructive in the development of this new initiative. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses are now increasingly involved in patient follow-up care and telephone dialogue after hospital discharge. However, the ideal structure, method and timing of telephone follow-up as well as the skills required to carry out such care over the phone are often not considered and have not been articulated. The option of telephone follow-up could, for some patients, dramatically improve their care experience.
AIMS: The aim of this review is to examine the potential of telephone follow-up for patients with colorectal cancer. BACKGROUND: More people are surviving cancer and entering into follow-up care. It is recognised that improvements in cancer follow-up care are needed in the UK. Telephone use has proved a very successful medium for conducting health care in other specialties and may offer an acceptable alternative to face-to-face follow-up appointments. Nurse specialists could assume responsibility for patients' follow-up by offering telephone consultations. DESIGN: A literature review was conducted via a systematic electronic and hand search of relevant literature. METHOD: Thematic content analysis was used to achieve the objectives of the review. Results. The findings demonstrate that telephone follow-up conducted by an experienced nurse specialist is cost-effective and accepted by the majority of patients. Aspects of care such as symptom management and reassurance are possible over the phone. CONCLUSION: Telephone follow-up meets patients' satisfaction, support and information needs and has potential to deliver high standards of aftercare when conducted by a nurse specialist. It is at least equivalent to traditional follow-up in meeting the needs of patients with cancer. Because of the disparity of the studies examined, further research in the area of nurse-led telephone follow-up vs. nurse-led traditional follow-up would be constructive in the development of this new initiative. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses are now increasingly involved in patient follow-up care and telephone dialogue after hospital discharge. However, the ideal structure, method and timing of telephone follow-up as well as the skills required to carry out such care over the phone are often not considered and have not been articulated. The option of telephone follow-up could, for some patients, dramatically improve their care experience.
Authors: Eduardo Bruera; Sriram Yennurajalingam; J Lynn Palmer; Pedro E Perez-Cruz; Susan Frisbee-Hume; Julio A Allo; Janet L Williams; Marlene Z Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Corinne Rochette; Anne Sophie Michallet; Stéphanie Malartre-Sapienza; Sophie Rodier Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jo Thompson-Coon; Abdul-Kareem Abdul-Rahman; Rebecca Whear; Alison Bethel; Bijay Vaidya; Christian A Gericke; Ken Stein Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 2.655