| Literature DB >> 32624470 |
Ray Samuriwo1,2, Candida Lovell-Smith3, Sally Anstey4, Claire Job4, Jane Hopkinson4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer are at high risk of developing pressure ulcers at the end of life as a result of their underlying condition or cancer treatment. There are many guidelines which set out best practice with regard to end-of-life skin care. However, the complexity of palliative cancer care often means that it is challenging for nurses to make the appropriate person-centred decisions about end-of-life skin care. This study seeks to explore the perceived importance that nurses place on different factors in their end-of-life skin care for patients with cancer. The utility, face validity and content validity of a prototype decision-making tool for end-of-life skin care will also be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-method design will be used to gather data from primary and secondary care nurses working in different hospitals and local authority areas across Wales. Clinical vignettes will be used to gather qualitative and quantitative data from nurses in individual interviews. Qualitative data will be subject to thematic analysis and quantitative data will be subject to descriptive statistical analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data will then be synthesised, which will enhance the rigour of this study, and pertinently inform the further development of an end-of-life skin care decision-making tool for patients with cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to undertake the study has been granted by Cardiff University School of Healthcare Sciences Research Governance and Ethics Screening Committee. Informed consent will be obtained in writing from all the participants in this study. The results of this study will be disseminated through journal articles, as well as presentations at national and international conferences. We will also report our findings to patient and public involvement groups with an interest in improving cancer care, palliative care as well as skin care. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: adult oncology; adult palliative care; wound management
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32624470 PMCID: PMC7337620 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034938
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Exemplar vignette
| NB: The information in this vignette is hypothetical and any similarities to an actual patient are purely coincidental | |
| Name | Rhys |
| Gender | Male |
| Age | 70 |
| Medical history | Lung cancer with metastatic spinal cord compression (T4 and T5) |
| Key information | The patient has been deemed to be approaching the end of life and his care is being informed by national guidelines and quality standards for care of the dying. |
Figure 1Data collection flow diagram.
Figure 2Flow chart for thematic analysis.
Key factors for end-of-life skin care decision-making adapted from Samuriwo et al29
| Factors | Rating |
| 1. (Nurse) Beliefs (about pressure ulcers and end-of-life skin care) | |
| 2. (Nurse) Emotions and feelings | |
| 3. (Nurse) Expertise and education | |
| 4. Advice from colleagues | |
| 5. (Nursing) Care co-ordination | |
| 6. Clinical routine and medical devices | |
| 7. (Pressure ulcer and end of life) Documentation | |
| 8. (Pressure ulcer related) Quality assurance processes | |
| 9. Severity of pressure ulcer | |
| 10. (Nurse) Workload | |
| 11. (Patient) Comfort | |
| 12. (Patient) Dignity | |
| 13. (Patient) Emotional well-being | |
| 14. (Patient) Autonomy | |
| 15. Patient preference | |
| 16. (Patient) Physiological status | |
| 17. Conversations (with patient’s family) and care delivery | |
| 18. (Family) Emotions and views | |
| 19. (Family) Participation in care |
What do you think is the relative importance of these different factors in nurses’ decision-making about end-of-life skin care on a scale of 1–10 if one is the least important and 10 is the most important? (Please bear in mind that you can give the same rating to more than one factor or cue).