Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:08:56.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Expert patient perspectives on radiotherapy: a phenomenological comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2017

M. Carmichael*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Discipline of Medical Radiations, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3083, Australia
P. Bridge
Affiliation:
Directorate of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, UK
*
Correspondence to: Mary-Ann Carmichael, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia. E-mail: mary-ann.carmichael@rmit.edu.au

Abstract

Background

Patient involvement in health profession student training is becoming more common and includes clinical case studies, informing curriculum development and active teaching in dedicated patient experience sessions. Despite a growing evidence base supporting patient involvement, there is little published data concerning motivation for involvement. A qualitative study was performed to provide narrative relating to patient experiences in expert patient sessions on an undergraduate radiation therapy course.

Methods

A phenomenological approach utilised semi-structured interviews with two expert patients from different backgrounds. A common set of questions were used for each participant. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed before thematic coding.

Results

Both participants identified areas of similarity as well as key difference in their experiences. Both had different levels of public speaking experience as well as different levels of knowledge relating to radiation therapy treatment. Both found the initial session emotional but ultimately enjoyed the process and found it cathartic.

Conclusion

The patients enjoyed this experience and identified clear value of the teaching for themselves and the students. Previous public speaking or clinical experience seemed to have limited impact on patient experience and suggested the vulnerability of the situation. Both had different perspectives of their fellow patients and their role in the healthcare partnership. These findings indicate the value of ensuring students have access to a range of perspectives from different patients.

Type
Educational Note
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. van Zanten, M, Boulet, J R, McKinley, D. Using standardized patients to assess the interpersonal skills of physicians: six years’ experience with a high-stakes certification examination. Health Commun 2007; 22 (3): 195205.Google Scholar
2. Howley, L, Martindale, J. The efficacy of standardized patient feedback in clinical teaching: a mixed methods analysis. Med Educ Online 2004; 9: 1822.Google Scholar
3. Terry, J. Service user involvement in pre‐registration mental health nurse education classroom settings: a review of the literature. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2012; 19 (9): 816829.Google Scholar
4. Solomon, P. Student perspectives on patient educators as facilitators of interprofessional education. Med Teach 2011; 33 (10): 851853.Google Scholar
5. Gidman, J. Listening to stories: valuing knowledge from patient experience. Nurse Educ Pract 2013; 13 (3): 192195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Henriksen, A H, Ringsted, C. Learning from patients: students’ perceptions of patient‐instructors. Med Educ 2011; 45 (9): 913919.Google Scholar
7. Thomson, D, Hilton, R. An evaluation of students’ perceptions of a college-based programme that involves patients, carers and service users in physiotherapy education. Physiother Res Int 2012; 17 (1): 3647.Google Scholar
8. Stickley, T, Stacey, G, Pollock, K, Smith, A, Betinis, J, Fairbank, S. The practice assessment of student nurses by people who use mental health services. Nurse Educ Today 2010; 30 (1): 2025.Google Scholar
9. Carpenter, R. Using story theory to create an innovative honors level nursing course. Nurs Educ Perspect 2010; 31 (1): 2831.Google Scholar
10. Turnbull, P, Weeley, F M. Service user involvement: inspiring student nurses to make a difference to patient care. Nurse Educ Pract 2013; 13 (5): 454455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Bleiker, J, Knapp, K M, Frampton, I. Teaching patient care to students: a blended learning approach in radiography education. Radiography 2011; 17 (3): 235240.Google Scholar
12. Perry, J, Watkins, M, Gilbert, A, Rawlinson, J. A systematic review of the evidence on service user involvement in interpersonal skills training of mental health students. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2013; 20 (6): 525540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hattie, J, Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007; 77 (1): 81112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Cherry, M G, Fletcher, I, O’Sullivan, H, Dornan, T. Emotional intelligence in medical education: a critical review. Med Educ 2014; 48: 468478.Google Scholar
15. Mack, J W, Smith, T J. Reasons why physicians do not have discussions about poor prognosis, why it matters, and what can be improved. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (22): 27152717.Google Scholar
16. Halkett, G K B, Merchant, S, Jiwa, M et al. Effective communication and information provision in radiotherapy – the role of radiation therapists. J Radiother Pract 2010; 9: 316.Google Scholar
17. van Weel-Baumgarten, E, Bolhuis, S, Rosenbaum, M, Silverman, J. Bridging the gap: how is integrating communication skills with medical content throughout the curriculum valued by students? Patient Educ Counsel 2013; 90: 177183.Google Scholar
18. Halkett, G K B, Kristjanson, L J. Patients’ perspectives on the role of radiation therapists. Patient Educ Counsel 2007; 69 (1): 7683.Google Scholar
19. Schofield, N G, Green, C, Creed, F. Communication skills of health-care professionals working in oncology – can they be improved? Eur J Oncol Nurs 2008; 12: 413.Google Scholar
20. Kvåle, K. Do cancer patients always want to talk about difficult emotions? A qualitative study of cancer inpatients’ communication needs. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2007; 11: 320327.Google Scholar
21. Diggens, J, Chesson, T. Do factors of emotion-focussed patient care and communication impact job stress, satisfaction and burnout in radiation therapists? J Radiother Pract 2014; 13: 417.Google Scholar
22. Hill, G, Thompson, G, Willis, S, Hodgson, D. Embracing service user involvement in radiotherapy education: a discussion paper. Radiography 2014; 20 (1): 8286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Costello, J, Horne, M. Patients as teachers? An evaluative study of patients’ involvement in classroom teaching. Nurs Educ Pract 2001; 1: 94102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Smith, S G, Turner, B, Pati, J, Petrides, K V, Sevdalis, N, Green, J S A. Psychological impairment in patients urgently referred for prostate and bladder cancer investigations: the role of trait emotional intelligence and perceived social support. Support Care Cancer 2012; 20: 699704.Google Scholar
25. Lauckner, H, Doucet, S, Wells, S. Patients as educators: the challenges and benefits of sharing experiences with students. Med Educ 2012; 46: 9921000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Spencer, J, McKimm, J. Patient involvement in medical education. In: Swanwick T. ed. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: 191.Google Scholar
27. Gecht, M R. What happens to patients who teach? Teach Learn Med 2000; 12 (4): 171175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Sharp, L, Carsini, A, Timmons, A. Associations between cancer-related financial stress and strain and psychological well-being among individuals living with cancer. Psychooncology 2013; 22: 745755.Google Scholar