MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Delivery of cancer care via an outpatient telephone support line: A cross-sectional study of oncology nursing perspectives on quality and challenges.

2022· article· en· W4298142795 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hely Shah, Lisa Vandermeer, Fiona MacDonald, Gail Laroque, Shannon Nelson, Mark Clemons, Sharon F. McGee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursingReferralCross-sectional studyFamily medicineOncology nursingPatient satisfactionNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

427 Background: Patient support lines (PSLs) help in triaging clinical problems, addressing patient queries and assist in navigating a complex multi-disciplinary oncology team. While providing support and training to nursing staff who operate these lines is key, there is limited data on their experience and feedback to guide this. Our objective was to identify areas of quality improvement for The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre (TOHCC) patient support lines. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of oncology nurses’ (ONs’) perspectives on the provision of care via PSLs at a tertiary referral cancer center via an anonymous, descriptive survey. Measures collected included nursing/patient characteristics, nature of questions addressed by the PSL, patient/nursing satisfaction with the service, common challenges faced, and initiatives to improve the patient and nursing experience. Results: Seventy-one percent (30/42) of eligible nurses responded to the survey. The most common disease site, stage, issue, and symptom addressed were breast cancer, metastatic disease, treatment-related toxicity, and pain, respectively. Despite majority of nurses reporting personal and patient satisfaction with the care provided by the PSL, there was variance in the perceived appropriate use of PSL by physicians and patients. As such, fifty-nine percent (17/29) of nurses recommended redefining the responsibilities of the PSL to achieve its maximal potential, with 75% (6/8) ONs identifying high call volumes due to inappropriate questions as a barrier to care. Sixty percent (18/30) of nurses reported that having TOHCC-specific management plans for common issues would improve their experience, and the quality of care provided on PSL. Lastly, 80% (24/30) of nurses denied experiencing a reduction in PSL call volumes with increased patient access to their electronic medical record. Conclusions: Our study identified several important areas for improvement warranting further investigation, despite high reported rates of satisfaction with care provided on PSL. A need for TOHCC standardized management algorithms for common issues addressed on the PSL as well as increased physician and patient education to redefine goals of the PSL to address problems with high volume, and inappropriate calls was identified.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207