Virtual Library
Start Your Search
V. Beattie
Moderator of
-
+
NU03 - Supporting Patients Receiving Treatment (ID 275)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Nurses Session
- Track: Nurses
- Presentations: 3
- Moderators:V. Beattie, M. Duffy
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 11:00 - 12:30, Schubert 5
-
+
NU03.01 - Supporting Patients Undergoing Radical Treatments EPD – MARS Study (ID 6465)
11:00 - 11:20 | Author(s): A.M. Tod
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Background Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive cancer of the lining of the chest wall and lung, its aetiology lies in asbestos exposure. With over 2,500 people diagnosed each year, the UK has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world. Chemotherapy is an established treatment for MPM but response rates are variable, evidence is lacking in new drug therapies and mortality remains high (in the UK half of patients die within 8.5 months of diagnosis) (Maggioni 2016, HSCIC 2015). Surgery is therefore an important option. Very little robust, randomised controlled trial evidence (RCT) exists regarding surgical interventions for mesothelioma and many studies are observational (Cao et al 2014). This has prompted global variations in surgical approaches (Mclean 2013). Extended Pleurectomy Decortication (EPD) is a surgery for patients considered to have resectable MPM. EPD involves the removal of the lining of the chest wall, lining of the lung, with the sac of the heart and / or diaphragm (as required to achieve complete tumour removal) but leaving the lung in-situ. However, evidence on survival or symptom improvement benefits of this surgery is limited (Cao et al 2014, Teh et al 2011). Challenges in surgical research are the lack of clinical trials and few patients choosing to enter RCTs for surgery (Treasure & Morton, 2012, Horton 1996). Potential explanations for this include restrictive trial regulation, patients declining randomisation, and difficulties in recruitment practice such as presenting trial arm options neutrally (Treasure & Morton 2012). The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2) Trial, a UK based study, will evaluate whether EPD can improve the length and / or quality of life in patients with surgically treatable disease and its cost-effectiveness. It will randomise participants to chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus surgery. The feasibility stage has demonstrated the ability to recruit and randomise to this study and the plan is to proceed to full trial. This paper presents findings from a nested qualitative patient experience sub-study within MARS 2 that investigated patient experience of the study interventions. It more specifically identifies the support and information needs for people regarding i) the interventions (surgery and chemotherapy) and ii) trial recruitment, consent and participation. This paper focuses on the findings related to support needs of the trial interventions. A summary of results will be provided along with reflections on the implications for future practice. Methods An in-depth longitudinal qualitative study with interviews of 16 participants randomised to chemotherapy (n=8) and chemotherapy + surgery (n=8). Interviews were conducted after randomisation (but before surgery in the surgical cohort). Surgical patients had an additional interview post-surgery. Framework analysis methods were used (Ritchie and Lewis, 2014). Follow-up interviews were at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. This paper presents findings up to and including the 6 months follow-up. Results Participants reported being well informed about their illness, but had struggled to absorb and understand the extent of information delivered at diagnosis. This was influenced by the range of significant subjects that were covered in a number of consultations with different healthcare staff providing distinct specialist services. The topics discussed included diagnostic information about mesothelioma, treatment options and consequences, trials processes and logistics, and legal and financial information regarding classification of MPM as an industrial disease. Despite feeling well informed about their treatment some participants reported not being prepared for the full extent of the problems they experienced. Both chemotherapy and surgery were challenging treatments although they were associated with different physical effects. Adverse consequences of treatment were described including neutropenic sepsis and dehydration post chemotherapy, and bleeding, prolonged pneumothorax and infection post-surgery. For most participants pain and breathlessness were experienced post-surgery while nausea, anorexia, taste changes and constipation were associated with chemotherapy. Fatigue that impacted on daily living was experienced by both groups. Interventions to manage the consequences of treatment were recounted; some had been recommended by healthcare staff while others had been developed by patients from their own initiative. Participants reported struggling to cope with the effect of treatment whilst trying to deal with the broader context of coming to terms with their illness. Uncertainty was expressed in relation to treatment plans (exacerbated by the logistics surrounding participation in a clinical trial), severity and duration of side effects, rehabilitation and recovery and treatment outcomes. Participants employed a number of strategies to help with coping. These included ‘playing things down’, ‘weighing the balance’, ‘managing expectations’, ‘taking control’ ‘manning up’ and ‘trust in the doctor and/or treatment’. Many of these strategies facilitated staying positive, maintaining hope and finding comfort which was important to participants. Family members played a key role in coping. A diverse range of healthcare staff provided information, advice and practical interventions across the care pathway from community, surgical, respiratory and oncology services. Discussion Patient’s perspectives on the experience of receiving radical surgery and/or chemotherapy for mesothelioma were identified by the study. This provided valuable insights into their impact on patient’s feelings about their illness and treatment and how they coped with the challenges they were presented with. Multiple sources of uncertainty were expressed by participants. The contribution of healthcare staff to supporting coping and providing information and advice was appraised positively by participants. However, we identified that fragmentation could occur due to the diverse services involved in providing care with no single point of contact or co-ordination. Conclusion Understanding the patient’s perspective of the challenges associated with treatment, alongside their strategies for coping, provides insights for the services that can support patients undergoing arduous treatments for mesothelioma. The study reveals ways to facilitate strategies to help patients manage the condition, as well as treatment side-effects. Interventions to reduce uncertainty have been identified as a priority for service improvement.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
NU03.02 - eHealth and Remote Patient Monitoring and Supportive Care in Thoracic Oncology (ID 6467)
11:20 - 11:40 | Author(s): R. Maguire
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Lung cancer is the commonest cancer worldwide with 1.6 million people diagnosed each year. People with lung cancer experience a high level of supportive care needs and many of these needs are unmet. Systematic supportive care is therefore vital in this patient group. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can be used to identify the supportive care needs of people with lung cancer and the collection of PROMs data is reported to have a number of positive effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing the utility of PROMs within clinical practice is the use of health technologies that have the ability to collect PROM data remotely from patients in their own homes and send this information in ‘real time’ immediately to relevant health/social care professionals for subsequent intervention. The Advanced Symptom Management System is one of the most evolved remote patient monitoring systems in cancer care. This presentation will initially focus on remote patient monitoring within the context of lung cancer before considering the implications for the future and the ultimate vision of connected health for all.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
NU03.03 - Supportive Care in Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy (ID 6468)
11:40 - 12:00 | Author(s): T. Cufer
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Introduction Systemic therapy (ST) with chemotherapy (Cht), targeted agents or immunotherapy (IT) represents the mainstay therapy for patients with advanced lung cancer; while adjuvant systemic therapy is recommended in a majority of patients with operable and locally advanced disease. The goal of ST is to prolong life without compromising quality of life (QoL). Despite the ability of ST to prolong life or even cure patients, QoL and life span might be compromised due treatment toxicity. In addition, uncontrolled adverse events (AEs) might lead to treatment interruption or discontinuation. Therefore, effective management of adverse events of anti-cancer drugs, the so-called “supportive care to systemic therapy” is extremely important for a true benefit, i.e. treatment effectiveness in a routine practice. During the last decade several improvements in prevention, treatment and amelioration of ST AEs been achieved. To implement them in everyday clinic practice a good understanding of adverse events, supportive care measures and professional skills of all team members are needed. Registered nurses, specialized in the oncology, the so called “oncology nurses” are key providers of supportive care in everyday clinical practice. Supportive care for prevention and treatment of adverse events Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been a priority in the supportive care of cancer patients ever since the first use of Cht (1). The introduction of 5-HT3 and NK1 antagonists into anti-emetic therapy resulted in much better control of CINV in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic, platinum-based therapy. With proper use of available drugs complete control of vomiting could be achieved in up to 90% of these patients. However, despite the efficacy of new anti-emetic therapies a proper us of anti-emetics and other preventive measures are vital. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with febrile neutropenia (FN) as its ultimate and most serious complication are often observed in patients receiving Cht. The risk of FN can be predicted by assessing patient characteristics and mylotoxicity of the Cht regimen; and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) can be used to prevent it (2). Even thought, most of the regimens for lung cancer do not classify to high, i.e. more than 20% risk of febrile neutropenia, the primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is often necessary due to high comorbidity index, poor PS or extensive disease often present in lung cancer patients. In case of FN, a risk-base approach provided by MASCC helps us to decide which patients need hospitalization and which can be treated by antimicrobial therapy at home (3). Oral mucositis and diarrhea related to mucosal damage are frequent complications of Cht as well as targeted therapy with TKIs that can significantly affect patient’s QoL and the ability to deliver full doses and complete therapy. Oral care protocols are essential components in prevention and treatment of stomatitis, while intensive local therapy protocols with antibiotics, anesthetics and/or corticosteroids help to ameliorative symptoms (4). Diarrhea is quite common in lung cancer patients receiving Cht with an even higher occurrence in patients treated with TKIs (5). It could be life threatening in elderly, fragile patients and in patients with concurrent neutropenia, thus requiring a rapid and effective control. When dietary strategy does not work, or when patients present with severe grade 3/4 diarrhea pharmacologic intervention with loperamide or even somatostatin analogues should be initiated quickly. Skin changes (rash, dry skin, paronychia) are the most frequent AEs associated with targeted therapy for lung cancer next to diarrhea. Even though, they are usually mild or moderate they hava negative impact on patient’s QoL and might lead to dose modifications or even discontinuation. Prophylactic measures with regular use of moisturizing products, sunshine protection and careful skin hygiene are necessary. In case of severe but still localized changes topical corticosteroids/antibiotics are indicated while a severe and prolonged toxicity usually requires TKIs dose interruptions (6). Fatigue is a common symptom reported in up to 80% of LC patients. In most cases it is impossible to distinguish to what extend it is the adverse event of ST and to what of disease. It is increasingly reported in patients receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy, and major improvements in recognition and treatment of fatigue have been achieved recently (7). Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) represents a novel approach. By breaking of immune self-tolerance it might lead to autoimmune/inflammatory adverse events, designated as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), mainly including rash, diarrhea, hepatitis and endocrinopathies (8). Although most of irAEs are of low grade, some of them progress rapidly and prompt medical attention with treatment interruption and the administration of glucocorticoids is critical. Implications for nursing Oncology nurses should have in-depth knowledge on adverse events of systemic therapy and must be familiar with the supportive care protocols. Nursing interventions for prevention and treatment of particular adverse events are presented in Table 1. Oncology nurses play a key role in continuous education of patients, their families and caregivers on adverse events. They are valuable members of the multidisciplinary team performing ongoing assessment of AEs and monitoring of patients and actively discussing potential solutions and improvements with other team members, thus providing a high-quality patient-centered care. Figure 1
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Author of
-
+
OA14 - Nurses in Care for Lung Cancer and in Research (ID 398)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Nurses
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:M. Culligan, M. Nematollahi
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 16:00 - 17:30, Schubert 5
-
+
OA14.05 - A Framework to Support the Lung Cancer Nurse Specialist in the Development and Evaluation of Nurse-Led Clinics (ID 6030)
16:45 - 16:55 | Author(s): V. Beattie
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
The United Kingdom National Lung Cancer Forum for Nurses Workshop 2015 produced guidance to support Lung Cancer nurse Specialists in developing and evaluating nurse-led clinics. Nurse-led clinics have been in existence for years with little guidance on structure and evaluation. They are safe and effective. Nurses provide individual care that makes a difference to patient outcomes. There is vast evidence available for nurse-led services but significantly less on lung cancer specific services despite a growing body of evidence to support this.
Methods:
A literature search was performed. This included developing a lung cancer nurse-led clinic, evaluation, audit tool and measurement. The initial search found limited number of relevant documents. Therefore the search was widened to include developing general nurse-led services. The NLCFN members were surveyed to evaluate current nurse-led clinics. The questionnaire comprised of eighteen questions incorporating all aspects of nurse-led follow up.
Results:
60% responded, suggesting a high interest in the area. Over half of the respondents ran nurse-led clinics. These included telephone, results, post-surgery, Health & Well being, TKI and breathlessness clinic. However 67% had not evaluated or audited these, 74% didn’t have patient information leaflets and 96% had access to medical cover. The seven most important steps in developing a lung cancer nurse-led clinic are: Aims and Objectives, Planning and Consultation, Multidisciplinary Support, Infrastructure, promoting the nurse-led service, Professional Development and Audit and Evaluation. These formed the basis of this framework.
Conclusion:
NICE (2011), suggests that patients should be offered a “follow-up led by a LCNS” . However, nurse-led clinics are challenging and there are many practical and emotional hurdles to be overcome. This framework supports LCNS’s in developing and evaluating nurse-led clinics . It gives clear guidance to be considered when developing and new service as well as advising on audit/evaluation tools and developing patient information leaflets.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
