MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413297749 · doi:10.1111/wvn.12166

Implementation of Symptom Protocols for Nurses Providing Telephone‐Based Cancer Symptom Management: A Comparative Case Study

2016· article· en· W2413297749 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dawn Stacey, Esther Green, Barbara Ballantyne, Joy Tarasuk, Myriam Skrutkowski, Meg Carley, Kim Chapman, Craig Kuziemsky, Erin Kolari, Brenda Sabo, Andréanne Saucier, Tara Shaw, Lucie Tardif, Tracy Truant, Greta G. Cummings, Doris Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreHealth Sciences NorthHorizon Health NetworkUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaNova Scotia Cancer CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityMontreal General HospitalCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineAuditTriagePsychological interventionNursingMedical educationMedical emergencyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) team developed 13 evidence-informed protocols for symptom management. AIM: To build an effective and sustainable approach for implementing the COSTaRS protocols for nurses providing telephone-based symptom support to cancer patients. METHODS: A comparative case study was guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework. Three cases were created for three Canadian oncology programs that have nurses providing telephone support. Teams of researchers and knowledge users: (a) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing protocol use, (b) adapted protocols for local use, (c) intervened to address barriers, (d) monitored use, and (e) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing sustained use. Analysis was within and across cases. RESULTS: At baseline, >85% nurses rated protocols positively but barriers were identified (64-80% needed training). Patients and families identified similar barriers and thought protocols would enhance consistency among nurses teaching self-management. Twenty-two COSTaRS workshops reached 85% to 97% of targeted nurses (N = 119). Nurses felt more confident with symptom management and using the COSTaRS protocols (p < .01). Protocol adaptations addressed barriers (e.g., health records approval, creating pocket versions, distributing with telephone messages). Chart audits revealed that protocols used were documented for 11% to 47% of patient calls. Sustained use requires organizational alignment and ongoing leadership support. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Protocol uptake was similar to trials that have evaluated tailored interventions to improve professional practice by overcoming identified barriers. Collaborating with knowledge users facilitated interpretation of findings, aided protocol adaptation, and supported implementation. Protocol implementation in nursing requires a tailored approach. A multifaceted intervention approach increased nurses' use of evidence-informed protocols during telephone calls with patients about symptoms. Training and other interventions improved nurses' confidence with using COSTaRS protocols and their uptake was evident in some documented telephone calls. Protocols could be adapted for use by patients and nurses globally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207