https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)32114-7.pdf

The UCL–Lancet Commission on Migration and Health: the health of a world on the move

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

/pdf/integration-of-oncology-and-palliative-care-a-lancet-1gya2zwql0.pdf

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission

Data on COVID-19 supports targeted social distancing could be an effective way to reduce morbidity and mortality, but could inadvertently increase stigma for affected populations. As health care providers we must be aware of the facts of COVID-19, cultural implications, and potential for stigmatization of populations affected by COVID-2019. It is important to consider the real economic impact related to lost workdays due to quarantine and social isolation efforts as well as travel restrictions that may negatively impact access to care and ability to pay for care. Efforts geared towards general education about the disease and the rationale for quarantine and public health information provided to the general public can reduce stigmatization. Countries who are successful at aggressive screening, early identification, patient isolation, contact tracing, quarantine, and infection control methods should also address the risk of stigmatization among populations and the negative effects which could occur. The cases of COVID-19 will continue to rise and the virus will be sustainable for future infections. Timely and appropriate public health interventions addressing cultural impact and risk for stigmatization along with proper screening, treatment, and follow up for affected individuals and close contacts can reduce the number of infections, serious illness, and deaths.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1043659620917724

COVID-19: Facts, Cultural Considerations, and Risk of Stigmatization.

Introduction Despite widespread interest in the topic, no current synthesis of research is available analysing the linkages between organisational or workplace cultures on the one hand, and patient outcomes on the other. This protocol proposes a systematic review to analyse and synthesise the literature to date on this topic. The resulting review will discuss characteristics of included studies in terms of the type of healthcare settings researched, the measurements of organisational and workplace culture, patient outcomes measured and the influence of these cultures on patient outcomes.

Methods and analysis A systematic review will be conducted aiming to examine the associations between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. An English language search of abstracts will be executed using the following academic databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. The review will include relevant peer-reviewed articles from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies, cross-sectional analyses, qualitative studies and mixed-method studies. Multiple researchers will be involved in assessing the quality of articles for inclusion in the review. This protocol documents a detailed search strategy, including terms and inclusion criteria, which will form the basis of the subsequent systematic review.

Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/11/e017708.full.pdf

Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review protocol

Addressing health workforce cultural competence is a common approach to improving health service quality for culturally and ethnically diverse groups. Research evidence in this area is primarily focused on cultural competency training and its effects on practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviour. While improvements in measures of healthcare practitioner cultural competency and other healthcare outcomes have been reported, there are concerns around evidence strength and quality. This scoping review reports on the intervention strategies, outcomes, and measures of included studies with the purpose of informing the implementation and evaluation of future interventions to improve health workforce cultural competence. This systematic scoping review was completed as part of a larger systematic literature search conducted on cultural competence intervention evaluations in health care in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand published from 2006 to 2015. Overall, 64 studies on cultural competency interventions were found, with 16 aimed directly at the health workforce. There was significant heterogeneity in workforce intervention strategies, measures and outcomes reported across studies making comparisons of intervention effects difficult. The two main workforce intervention strategies identified were cultural competency training and other professional development interventions including other training and mentoring. Positive outcomes were commonly reported for improved practitioner knowledge (9/16), skills (7/16), and attitudes/beliefs (5/16). Although health care (6/16) and health (2/16) outcomes were reported in some studies there was very limited evidence of positive intervention impacts. Only four studies utilised existing validated measurement tools to assess intervention outcomes. Training and development of the health workforce remain a principle strategy towards the goal of improved cultural competence in health services and systems. Diverse approaches are available to increase health workforce cultural competence. However, the effects of interventions beyond practitioner knowledge and attitudes remains unclear. Assessment of practitioner behavioural outcomes as well as measures of intervention impact on healthcare and health outcomes are needed to build a stronger evidence base.

/pdf/health-workforce-cultural-competency-interventions-a-lmr6ary1td.pdf

Health workforce cultural competency interventions: a systematic scoping review

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(14)61603-2.pdf

Trinley Walker

Papers

Culture and health