Patients’ perceptions of end of treatment consultations for breast cancer
Art & Science Previous     Next

Patients’ perceptions of end of treatment consultations for breast cancer

Jo Armes Senior lecturer, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, King’s College London
Amanda Shewbridge Nurse consultant, Breast cancer, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London
Jannike Nordlund Quality and productivity lead, cancer programme, King’s Health Partners
Jennifer Finnegan-John Research officer, Breast Cancer Care
Jaqualyn Moore Lecturer, King’s College London
Jacqueline Bloomfield Director of pre-registration programmes, University of Sydney
Emma Ream Professor of supportive cancer care and director of research, University of Surrey

Jo Armes and colleagues assess the results of an evaluation of patients’ views of their quality of life, supportive care needs and the EoTC service

This article presents results from a service evaluation exploring the effect of end of treatment consultations (EoTCs) for women with breast cancer. Of 94 women who attended EoTCs in 2011, 51 completed questionnaires assessing quality of life (QoL), unmet supportive care needs, fear of recurrence, distress, and their relationship with the EoTC nurse. In addition, 15 also participated in qualitative interviews exploring their experiences of EoTCs in more depth. Results from the QoL measure showed the small number of women who experienced low QoL also reported significantly greater unmet needs, distress and fears of recurrence. In the interviews, all women explained the EoTC was beneficial because it provided a chance to express concerns, receive answers to questions and identify potential sources of support. They saw the EoTC as an important point of closure that facilitated the provision of post-treatment supportive care tailored to their individual needs.

Cancer Nursing Practice. 15, 4,28-36. doi: 10.7748/cnp.15.4.28.s20

Correspondence

jo.armes@kcl.ac.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to double-blind review and has been checked using antiplagiarism software

Conflict of interest

The evaluation was funded by Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity

Received: 04 February 2016

Accepted: 29 March 2016