Archives

  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • br Altman KW Yu G

    2020-08-18


    [50] Altman KW, Yu G-P, Schaefer SD. Consequence of dysphagia in the hospitalized patient: impact on prognosis and hospital resources. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136(8):784–9. [51] Genther DJ, Gourin CG. Effect of comorbidity on short-term outcomes and cost of care after head and neck cancer surgery in the elderly. Head Neck 2015;37(5):685–93.
    [53] Attrill S, White S, Murray J, Hammond S, Doeltgen S. Impact of oropharyngeal dysphagia on healthcare cost and length of stay in hospital: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18(1):594. [54] Hamad C, Matthew SC, Kimberly W, et al. Readmission following primary surgery for EIPA and oropharynx cancer in the elderly. Laryngoscope 2017;127(3):631–41.
    [55] Kaji AH, Schriger D, Green S. Looking through the retrospectoscope: reducing bias in emergency medicine chart review studies. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64(3):292–8. [56] Pauloski BR, Rademaker AW, Logemann JA, et al. Swallow function and perception of dysphagia in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2002;24(6):555–65. [57] Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, Rademaker AW, et al. Xerostomia: 12-Month changes in saliva production and its relationship to perception and performance of swallow function, oral intake, and diet after chemoradiation. Head Neck 2003;25(6):432–7. [58] Hughes PJ, Scott PM, Kew J, et al. Dysphagia in treated nasopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 2000;22(4):393–7. [59] Herbert G, Sutton E, Burden S, et al. Healthcare professionals’ views of the en-hanced recovery after surgery programme: a qualitative investigation. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:617.
    [61] Roberts N, Hooper G, Lorencatto F, Storr W, Spivey M. Barriers and facilitators towards implementing the Sepsis Six care bundle (BLISS-1): a mixed methods in-vestigation using the theoretical domains framework. Scand J Trauma Resuscitation Emerg Med 2017;25:96.
    Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
    European Journal of Oncology Nursing
    journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejon
    Associations of individualized nursing care and quality oncology nursing care in patients diagnosed with cancer 
    T
    Maria Kousouloua, Riitta Suhonenb, Andreas Charalambousa,c,∗
    aCyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus b University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science and Director of Nursing, Turku University Hospital and City of Turku, Welfare Division, Turku, Finland cDocent University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science, Turku, Finland
    Keywords:
    Individualized nursing care
    Quality of oncology nursing care
    Patients diagnosed with cancer
    Individualized care scale (ICS)
    Quality oncology nursing care scale (QONCS) 
    Purpose: To assess patients’ diagnosed with cancer perceptions on individualized nursing care and quality of oncology nursing care in Cyprus. Methods: This was a descriptive correlational research with 150 patients diagnosed with cancer and receiving treatment as in-patients at three different urban hospitals of Cyprus, based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were collected with the Individualized Care Scale-ICS and the Quality Oncology Nursing Care Scale-QONCS. Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.
    Results: Data showed that a medium level of support of patients’ individuality was provided by nurses (ICS-A mean = 3.41, SD = 0.98) and a high level of realization of perceived individuality in the provided care. Quality of oncology nursing care was found high on three dimensions of care, i.e. being supported and confirmed, being respected and having a sense of belonging. A statistically significant positive correla-tion was observed between the two scales of ICS, i.e. ICS-A and ΙCS-B (r = 0.80), and four of the dimensions of QONCS, i.e. “Being supported and confirmed”, “Being cared for religiously and spiritually”, “Sense of Belonging” and “Being respected” and all the subscales, i.e. Clinical Situation (r = 0.45, 0.27, 0.41, 0.42), Personal life sit-uation (r = 0.30, 0.51, 0.44, 0.35) and Decision control (r = 0.35, 0.46, 0.35, 0.40).
    Conclusion: The correlations found between individualized care and quality of oncology nursing care, highlight the need to provide a more personalized nursing care as a means to achieve a high level of quality nursing care.
    1. Introduction
    Being treated for cancer is not only accompanied by negative side-effects but also it has serious implications on patients diagnosed with cancer and their families. Because of the range of symptoms and side-effects and the nature of the disease, patients with cancer have different and more complex needs compared to other patients (Helliwell et al., 2016; Shin, 2014). Thus, patients with cancer need to manage their feelings towards their disease and treatment, to improve their coping ability, to reduce their anxiety and mood disturbances and be prepared for a rather lengthy period of treatment and medical interventions (Shin, 2014). In order to improve the well-being of these patients and holistically meet their needs, it is important to provide individualized and quality nursing care in a behavioural, cognitive and comprehensive way, as a right of all the patients (Browall et al., 2013).