NDLI: Integrating accompanying patients into clinical oncology teams: limiting and facilitating factors

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Pomey, Marie-Pascale Paquette, Jesseca Nelea, Monica Iliescu Vialaron, Cécile Mourad, Rim Bouchard, Karine Normandin, Louise Côté, Marie-Andrée Desforges, Mado Pomey-Carpentier, Pénélope Fortin, Israël Ganache, Isabelle Régis, Catherine Rosberger, Zeev Charpentier, Danielle Vachon, Marie-France Bélanger, Lynda Dorval, Michel Ghadiri, Djahanchah P. Lavoie-Tremblay, Mélanie Boivin, Antoine Pelletier, Jean-François Fernandez, Nicolas Danino, Alain M. de Guise, Michèle
Abstract	Objectives Since 2018, four establishments in Quebec have been instrumental in implementing the PAROLE-Onco program, which introduced accompanying patients (APs) into healthcare teams to improve cancer patients’ experience. APs are patient advisors who have acquired specific experiential knowledge related to living with cancer, using services, and interacting with healthcare professionals. They are therefore in a unique and reliable position to be able to provide emotional, informational, cognitive and navigational support to patients who are dealing with cancer. We aimed to explore APs’ perspectives regarding the limiting and facilitating factors in terms of how they are integrated into the clinical oncology teams. Methods A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews and focus groups was conducted with 20 APs at the beginning of their intervention (T1) and, two years later, during a second data collection (T2). Limiting and facilitating factors of APs’ integration into clinical teams were analyzed in terms of governance, culture, resources and tools. Results The limited factors raised by APs to be integrated into clinical teams include the following: confusion about the specific roles played by APs, lifting the egos of certain professionals who feel they are already doing what APs typically do, lack of identification of patient needs, absence of APs in project governance organizational boundaries, and team members' availability. Various communication challenges were also raised, resulting in the program being inadequately promoted among patients. Also mentioned as limiting factors were the lack of time, space and compensation. Creating opportunities for team members to meet with APs, building trust and teaching team members how APs’ activities complement theirs were enhancing factors. Other facilitators include APs being involved in decision-making committees, being leaders in promoting the PAROLE-Onco program to patients and clinical team members and creating opportunities to communicate with team members to help enhance their work and provide feedback to improve patient services. Awareness of APs’ added value for the team and patients is also a key facilitator. Regarding tools, offering accompanying services by telephone allows both patients and APs to benefit from the flexibility they need. Conclusion Over time, APs were able to identify optimal factors for successful implementation. Recommendations include APs and professionals working in co-construction on organization, leadership, resources and status factors. This could help catalyze a change in culture within health establishments and allow people dealing with cancer to benefit from the experiential knowledge of other patients within their clinical team.
Related Links	https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12913-024-10624-w.pdf
Ending Page	13
Page Count	13
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	14726963
DOI	10.1186/s12913-024-10624-w
Journal	BMC Health Services Research
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	24
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2024-01-30
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Public Health Health Administration Health Informatics Nursing Research Accompanying patients Patient advisor Peer support Oncology Patient care experience Clinical team Facilitating factors Barriers
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Accompanying patients in clinical oncology teams: Reported activities and perceived effects.

The black box of the relationship between breast cancer patients and accompanying patients: the accompanied patients’ point of view

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice

The patient advisor, an organizational resource as a lever for an enhanced oncology patient experience (PAROLE-onco): a longitudinal multiple case study protocol

Optimizing the Maastricht Work-Related Support intervention in clinical patient care: the value of integrating action research into intervention mapping

Factors influencing the formation of balanced care teams: the organisation, performance, and perception of nursing care teams and the link with patient outcomes: a systematic scoping review

Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

Effects of interdisciplinary teamwork on patient-reported experience of cancer care

Integrating stakeholder feedback into the design of a peer-delivered primary care wellness program: A rapid qualitative study

Integrating accompanying patients into clinical oncology teams: limiting and facilitating factors

Similar Documents

Accompanying patients in clinical oncology teams: Reported activities and perceived effects.

The black box of the relationship between breast cancer patients and accompanying patients: the accompanied patients’ point of view

Translation of oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) recommendations into clinical practice

The patient advisor, an organizational resource as a lever for an enhanced oncology patient experience (PAROLE-onco): a longitudinal multiple case study protocol

Optimizing the Maastricht Work-Related Support intervention in clinical patient care: the value of integrating action research into intervention mapping

Factors influencing the formation of balanced care teams: the organisation, performance, and perception of nursing care teams and the link with patient outcomes: a systematic scoping review

Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

Effects of interdisciplinary teamwork on patient-reported experience of cancer care

Integrating stakeholder feedback into the design of a peer-delivered primary care wellness program: A rapid qualitative study

Integrating accompanying patients into clinical oncology teams: limiting and facilitating factors