Developing a Next-of-Kin Involvement Guide in Cancer Care-Results From a Consensus Process.
Inger J Bergerød, Geir S Braut, Birte Fagerdal and 2 others
PMID 32769375WHAT IT FOUND
A cancer care panel suggested involving next-of-kin by documenting their observations, clarifying their role, training them, and using discharge checklists.
This guide is a consensus suggestion, not tested evidence that it improves care.
Key findings
01The panel's top learning priorities included documenting next-of-kin experiences, recognizing that next-of-kin secure in their role can contribute to patient safety, and using next-of-kin evaluation for service improvement.
02For methods and tools, the panel prioritized clarifying next-of-kin roles across curative and palliative care, using learning and coping centers, improving information, training healthcare professionals, and technology such as apps and admission forms.
03The group results noted that next-of-kin possess essential information about the patient, are central to care coordination, and give valuable feedback about how patients respond to treatment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The meeting lasted one day and could not be extended because of funding and travel constraints. The panel was small and mainly healthcare professionals, so it may not represent all cancer care staff or families. The participant table and the meeting description report different role counts, so the exact panel composition is unclear. Participants read earlier project papers before the meeting, which may have shaped their views. Uneven power relations could have limited some participants from speaking up. The guide has not been tested in practice or linked to patient outcomes.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the guide as evidence that involving next-of-kin improves cancer care safety or outcomes. The paper reports stakeholder priorities and a proposed guide, but it did not test the guide in patients or measure care outcomes.