4.5 Article

Quantifying postdischarge unmet supportive care needs of people with colorectal cancer: a clinical audit

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 1400-1406

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02478.x

关键词

Colorectal cancer; supportive care; unmet need; needs assessment; follow-up care; cancer nurse specialists

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim There are limited data concerning the unmet needs experienced by patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to identify unmet supportive care needs of people with colorectal cancer following discharge from hospital. Method Health service utilization was used as a measure of expressed unmet need. A retrospective case note review was conducted of 521 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2007. Case notes maintained by a cancer nurse specialist were reviewed to identify postdischarge occasions-of-service where unmet need was expressed. Logistic regression was conducted to investigate predictors of unmet need. Results Of 521 patients, 219 (42%) patients had unmet supportive care needs, of which 50% of all needs was found in the physical domain. Twenty-six per cent of unmet needs was expressed within the first week following discharge from hospital after cancer surgery; however, 21% persisted after 6 months. Multivariate analysis indentified that in this cohort, younger age predicted the expression of an unmet need (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99). People with rectal cancer remained significantly more likely to require more than one contact with the nurse to satisfy a need (AOR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.60-5.01) and to report a physical need (AOR, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.03-6.27). Conclusion This study has shown that auditing the interactions of a cancer nurse with patients can provide information about unmet supportive care needs, which can be used to develop relevant supportive care services or interventions for people with colorectal cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据