Evaluating a professional patient navigation intervention in a supportive care setting

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer 2019-09, Vol.27 (9), p.3281-3290
• Main Authors: Berezowska, Aleksandra, Passchier, Ellen, Bleiker, Eveline
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Breast cancer; Cancer; Cancer patients; Care and treatment; Counseling; Health aspects; Intervention; Medical records; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Medicine, Experimental; Melanoma; Nurse patient relationships; Nurse specialists; Nurses; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Original Article; Pain Medicine; Patient education; Patient satisfaction; Rehabilitation Medicine
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4622-2

Purpose Unmet supportive care needs are common among cancer patients. This study evaluates a patient navigation intervention (i.e., specially trained oncology nurse who monitors, advises, and (if needed) refers patients to supportive cancer care) in terms of need, satisfaction, advice uptake, and consumption of supportive cancer care. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, the intervention was evaluated among healthcare professionals, patients who participated, and patients who did not participate in the intervention. All patients were newly diagnosed with breast cancer or melanoma. Data was collected through medical records and online surveys. Results In total, 1091 patients were offered patient navigation. Most of these patients (755) were willing to consult the patient navigator (PN). Approximately 90% of patients who completed both the intervention and the questionnaire ( N  = 120, response rate 54%) perceived the PN as valuable, accessible, and reliable. Approximately 80% of respondents who needed advice regarding nutrition ( n  = 67), fatigue ( n  = 98), emotions ( n  = 106), and work ( n  = 79) were adequately informed by the PN. Of the 120 respondents, 59 used some form of supportive cancer care. Most of the responding healthcare professionals ( N  = 70, response rate 45%) perceived the intervention as a valuable addition to current cancer care ( n  = 51) and mentioned that the PN should be available to all patients ( n  = 54). Conclusions The intervention was perceived as valuable by both patients and healthcare professionals. The results may, however, been biased by the large number of patients who were omitted from participation due to logistical reasons.