A Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) initiative to redefine the use of the end-of-treatment bell.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
384 Background: Ringing a bell or gong at the end of cancer treatment is a long-standing tradition in many cancer centers, symbolizing a significant milestone for patients, their caregivers, and staff. However, for patients who may never complete treatment, experience recurrence, or are on lifelong medications, the sound of the bell can be distressing. We sought stakeholder input to develop guidance for celebrating cancer care milestones within an ethical framework. Methods: A 9-question survey with both quantitative and qualitative fields was disseminated to both patients and staff to assess the value of bell ringing, the location of bells, and their use beyond the end of treatment. The survey was initially pilot-tested in one unit and subsequently adjusted. The final survey was distributed to leaders and various patient groups (both online and paper) over a one-month period. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. Key findings were discussed with leadership teams to develop a guidance document. Results: A total of 101 patients and 28 staff completed the survey. Most staff opted not to complete the survey as the patient voice was deemed to be more important. The majority of patients (85%) and staff (75%) supported the idea of ringing a bell or gong to celebrate while at the cancer centre. Most respondents felt the bell should be located in a semi-private area within inpatient and outpatient units. Additionally, 60% of patients agreed/strongly agreed that the bell should mark any significant milestone beyond end of treatment, in comparison to 32% of staff. Staff felt the bell should primarily mark the end of treatment. Qualitative comments indicated redefining the bell would need clear guidance and instructions. A guidance document was developed to aid in celebrating any patient milestone inclusive of 1. cancer milestones such as marking another year living with cancer, 2. changes in treatment (e.g., switching to palliative care), 3. making important decisions, such goals of care decisions and 4. completion of treatment. Patients are invited to ring the bell more than once if they reach several milestones. Conclusions: Engaging patients is crucial to understanding sensitivities surrounding the end-of-treatment tradition. Patients' perspectives differed from those of staff, who may be unaware of the range of emotions experienced by patients waiting in a busy clinic setting. Standardized guidance to redefine the use of the bell beyond the end of treatment was supported by the majority of patients. Consideration should be given to the bell's location if moving beyond treatment, rebranding, and broad communication of these changes to ensure effective implementation. This abstract highlights the importance of patient engagement to develop processes that promote health and healing in a cancer centre.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».