We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Australian children fall short of national dietary guidelines with only 63% consuming adequate fruit and 10% enough vegetables. Before school care operates as part of Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) services and provides opportunities to address poor dietary habits in children. The aim of this study was to describe the food and beverages provided in before school care and to explore how service-level factors influence food provision.
Design:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in OSHC services. Services had their before school care visited twice between March and June 2021. Direct observation was used to capture food and beverage provision, and child and staff behaviour during breakfast. Interviews with staff collected information on service characteristics. Foods were categorised using the Australian Dietary Guidelines, and frequencies calculated. Fishers Exact Test was used to compare food provision with service characteristics.
Setting:
The before school care of OSHC services in New South Wales, Australia.
Participants:
25 OSHC services.
Results:
Fruit was provided on 22% (n=11) of days and vegetables on 12% (n=6). Services with nutrition policies containing specific language on food provision (i.e. measurable) were more likely to provide fruit compared to those with policies using non-specific language (p = 0.027). Services that reported receiving training in healthy eating provided more vegetables than those who had not received training (p = 0.037).
Conclusions:
Before school care can be supported to improve food provision through staff professional development and advocating regulatory bodies for increased specificity requirements in the nutrition policies of service providers.
Medicines routinely funded for use in Wales undergo health technology appraisal by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This includes pediatric license extensions (PLE) notwithstanding any existing advice in adults. A review of the PLE process was conducted with the aim of providing faster access to children’s medicines in Wales.
Methods
Data were collected for PLE appraisals of medicines previously approved for adults by the AWMSG or NICE that subsequently went through the original PLE process between January 2010 and December 2020, or a simplified PLE process between January 2021 and March 2023. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a two-tailed t-test (unequal variance) to test the null hypothesis that the difference between the two means was zero. An alpha of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Feedback was obtained from relevant stakeholders including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (Wales) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Results
The AWMSG issued positive recommendations for all PLE appraisals included in the data collected, and these were endorsed by the Welsh Government. Appraisals that went through the original PLE process (n=56) took a mean 229.8 days (standard deviation 55.6), whereas those that went through the simplified PLE process (n=15) took a mean 102.6 days (standard deviation 48.1; p < 0.0001). The rapid access to children’s medicines was welcomed by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Conclusions
Review of the 2020 and 2023 PLE processes facilitated faster access to clinically effective and cost-effective medicines for children in Wales. In March 2023, the AWMSG and the Welsh Government reviewed these results and agreed that because all PLE medicines were approved for use within Wales irrespective of the process used, the AWMSG would no longer be required to routinely appraise PLEs.
Stigma of mental health conditions hinders recovery and well-being. The Honest, Open, Proud (HOP) program shows promise in reducing stigma but there is uncertainty about the feasibility of a randomized trial to evaluate a peer-delivered, individual adaptation of HOP for psychosis (Let's Talk).
Methods
A multi-site, Prospective Randomized Open Blinded Evaluation (PROBE) design, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the peer-delivered intervention (Let's Talk) to treatment as usual (TAU). Follow-up was 2.5 and 6 months. Randomization was via a web-based system, with permuted blocks of random size. Up to 10 sessions of the intervention over 10 weeks were offered. The primary outcome was feasibility data (recruitment, retention, intervention attendance). Primary outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported by as treated status. The study was prospectively registered: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17197043.
Results
149 patients were referred to the study and 70 were recruited. 35 were randomly assigned to intervention + TAU and 35 to TAU. Recruitment was 93% of the target sample size. Retention rate was high (81% at 2.5 months primary endpoint), and intervention attendance rate was high (83%). 21% of 33 patients in Let's talk + TAU had an adverse event and 16% of 37 patients in TAU. One serious adverse event (pre-randomization) was partially related and expected.
Conclusions
This is the first trial to show that it is feasible and safe to conduct a RCT of HOP adapted for people with psychosis and individual delivery. An adequately powered trial is required to provide robust evidence.
Sometimes patients and clinicians don’t agree and there is conflict. Many people prefer to avoid conflict, however working through it allows us to discuss our differences of opinion, explore the options, and come up with an agreement that we all can live with. Good communication skills can help shift the focus from “Who’s right?” to “What’s our shared interest?” This roadmap is different as it is about how you find your path amidst conflict. Start by noticing there is a disagreement. Prepare yourself by pausing, being curious, and assuming positive intent. Invite the other person’s perspective and listen to their story, emotion, and what it means to their sense of self. Identify what is at the root of the conflict and if possible, articulate it as a shared interest. Brainstorm to address the shared interest, and look for options that address everyone’s goals. Remember that conflicts occur because people care deeply, which means that resolving the conflict will take time and effort. Even in instances where it is not possible to agree, skillful communication can allow for graceful disagreement.
Conflict with our colleagues is stressful and evokes strong emotion, yet handled well can improve outcomes and relationships and enhance collaboration. There are issues of hierarchy, power, and respect. Similar to dealing with conflict with patients is the need to establish a safe space, practice deep listening, and earn trust. Being open to exploring the breadth of the problem, both parties perspectives, your role in the conflict, how you feel about events, and what it means to you will help you approach the situation with a more open mind. Keeping a focus on improving the situation and relationship rather than solely on being right will help maintain calm. The roadmap for conflict with colleagues includes noticing when conflict is bubbling up, preparing your approach instead of jumping in reactively, starting softly to avoid provoking defensiveness, inviting the other person’s perspective before you share yours, using neutral language to reframe emotionally charged issues, acknowledging the emotion of the situation (rather than handling your colleague’s emotions directly), and finding a path forward that addresses both parties’ concerns, creating new options where needed.
To hone your skills, one needs to observe what “good” looks like, practice, and receive feedback. We recommend setting a communication skills goal before the encounter, and then debriefing how it went, celebrating what you did well, and considering what to do differently next time, as well as what you learned in the process. Practicing skills in conversation roadmaps is incomplete without building of our internal capacities, like curiosity and emotional awareness, which help us foster more authentic connection. Learning new skills is not linear. Be kind to yourself when you’re having a bad day or feeling burnt out. Better communication skills can help they leads to more engaged clinical encounters which provide positive feedback making patient care more rewarding. Also, the roadmaps in this book are a kind of scaffold for learning, intended to provide support until you get your foundation settled. After a while, you may no longer need them. True expertise requires building both skills and capacities, practicing regularly, and caring for oneself in the process.
Multiple family members means multiple perspectives, agendas, emotions, and values. And, families are more than a collection of individuals. They have with their own way of functioning as a whole. When meeting with family about their loved one’s care, there are important steps similar to the maps we used with patients themselves. First, pre-meet to decide who’s going to be invited. The team should also agree upon a big picture headline. During the conference, introduce all participants and the purpose of meeting. Assess what the family knows and their different perspectives. Update the family using a headline, and address questions and concerns. Empathize and respond to the various emotions in the room. Prioritize the patient’s values. Align with the patient’s values and support the family. Finally, summarize and provide a concrete follow-up plan. An effective family conference can get everyone on the same page, ensure that the patient and family understand the medical situation, and help the family and care team come together to make treatment decisions that align with the patient’s values.
Some situations are particularly challenging. These include high-stakes, high-emotion conversations, like when patients talk about miracles or when they request hastened death. In the case of miracles, it is because they understand how bad things are that miracles are invoked. In the case of requests for hastened death, the request is brought on by suffering or fear of suffering. In both cases, the first thing is to do is take a breath and then explore, rather than react from a place of emotion. Another challenge is when responding to emotion isn’t enough. This can occur when a patient really does want information, when patients are coping through intellectualizing, when the emotion is too overwhelming, or when the level of emotion (and sometimes physical agitation) is elevated to the point of feeling or being unsafe. Each of these requires a tailored response like giving information, nonconfrontation, or containment before being able to move forward. Finally, in situations when our own emotions become elevated, it is important to allow ourselves to feel while being mindful we remain of service to the patient, and that we get support from trusted team members and colleagues.
Discussing treatment options is more complex than giving information and making a recommendation. Today, shared decision making includes patient access to the electronic medical record and internet searches, however patients still turn to their clinicians as the most important and trusted source. In addition to balancing information and emotion, clinicians need to take into account how involved patients wish to be in decision making. A roadmap for discussing treatment decisions is: 1. Prepare for the visit, 2. Frame the decision to be made, 3. Ask about decision-making preferences explicitly, 4. Adapt the discussion and recommendations based on patient decision-making preferences (shared decision making, clinician-led decision making, pros/cons), 5. Check for patient understanding, 6. Establish how the patient wants to proceed with the decision-making process. Take care with how statistics are presented and consider providing decision aides. Asking patients how they want to make decisions will help ground decisions in their values.
When prolonging life with acceptable quality of life becomes difficult, goals of care discussion are necessary. For clinicians and patients, the discontinuation of disease-modifying therapy can feel like a failure. This can lead clinicians to offer treatments we don’t believe are good options or offering treatment on the condition that our patients make an improbable recovery. The roadmap for late stage goals of care discussions is REMAP. Reframe why the status quo isn’t working, expect emotion and respond with empathy, map big picture values, align with the patient’s values, and finally plan medical treatments based on what’s important to your patient. Some things to note: Mapping thoroughly will help you make sure you don’t miss something important. A useful shift in thinking for many clinicians is first talking about what you will do before talking about what should be stopped or you won’t offer. And, clearly linking your recommendations to the patient’s values will help your proposed plan be more acceptable. By grounding ourselves in what is medically possible and using the patient’s values to guide our next steps, we can cocreate a plan that is both possible and meaningful.
Most clinicians prefer that patients plan for their future illness care before things become urgent or they lose the ability to make decisions. Completing an advance directive form by itself does not always impact future care decisions. Rather than focusing on hypothetical specific treatment decisions in the future or the completion of forms, conversations early in serious illness focusing on what matters most to patients may help guide care decisions over time and prepare patients and families for future conversations about specifics in real time when things do progress. The key is to plan on multiple small conversations over time. A roadmap for having these early goals of care discussion is PAUSE (Pause to make time for the conversation, Ask permission to discuss the topic and explain why, Uncover values first (don’t lead with code status), Suggest selecting a surrogate, Expect emotion/End). Some patients shy away from considering a future state when their disease has worsened, and are not interested in talking about what matters to them. Exploring why using a motivational approach and focusing on your relationship may help plant the seed and make future conversations easier.
Clinicians and patients have varying degrees of comfort in discussing prognosis. Patients can swing between worry or understanding that death is near and hope or optimism that lets them live life. This prognostication awareness pendulum may require a clinician negotiate the discussion over time. The cognitive roadmap for prognosis discussion is ADAPT (Ask what they know about their medical condition, Discover what they want to know about prognosis, Anticipate ambivalence, Provide information about what to expect, and Track emotion and respond with empathy). Some patients want prognostic information, some don’t, and some are ambivalent. While respecting their wishes, exploring why in each of these scenarios may be helpful to understand their concerns and how best to address them. Be aware that patients and their family members may have different prognostic information needs. Having separate conversations (with permission) may be in order. When they are concerned about destroying hope or prognosis is uncertain, using the frame of “hope and worry” can be helpful. Finally, when patients or family members don’t believe our prognosis, be curious as to why and focus on the relationship.
Four core communication skills are “Ask-tell-ask”, recognize and respond to emotion, ask permission to move forward, and “Tell me more…” “Ask-tell-ask” is asking what the patient or surrogate knows about the medical situation, telling them the headline (information and meaning), and asking what they are taking away from your conversation. Recognizing and responding to emotion, both verbal and nonverbal, can allow patients to discuss additional medical information, builds connection between clinician and patient, and can clarify what is important to the patient. Responding to emotion may be nonverbal or verbal (e.g., NURSE statements), and may include simple or complex reflections or “wish statements”. Asking permission to move the conversation forward signposts that there is a transition, allows patients control, and helps you judge if they are ready. Finally, “Tell me more…” helps clarify informational needs or allow a deeper view into a patient’s reasoning or emotional space, giving the clinician guidance on where to direct the conversation. In telemedicine, communication skills need to be adapted as some of the in-person nonverbal skills are less effective or impossible.
While most clinicians have experience discussing resuscitation, talking about dying requires the patient and family be willing to think about the medical treatment not working. Clinicians hesitate to bring up dying because they worry it will raise strong emotions, and they’re not sure what to do. Like REMAP, discussing code status requires a shared understanding of the “big picture”, responding to emotions, eliciting values, and making a recommendation about code status based on the medical reality and the individual patient’s values even if they differ from our own. The frame of “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” may help with the discussion. As people near the end of life, there are often questions that are hard for patients and families to ask, like what dying looks like, issues brought up by trauma or stigma, spiritual or existential concerns, or when the dying process is longer than anticipated. When clinicians create space for these sorts of concerns, we can address uncertainty and suffering that would have otherwise gone unspoken. Finally, being able to say goodbye to a patient requires insight and skill, but can be deeply meaningful for all involved.
The VitalTalk roadmap for talking about serious news is GUIDE (Get ready, Understand, Inform, Demonstrate empathy, and Equip patient for next steps). Getting ready includes planning the details of the meeting, including why and how the information is to be shared. The next step is understanding what the patient expects from the visit and what they have been told so far. Prior to giving information, the clinician should ask permission to share what they know. The news should be shared using a headline containing both data and what it means for the patient’s life. Afterwards, the clinician should demonstrate empathy by recognizing and responding to emotion. Equipping the patient includes discussing next steps, summarizing, and checking for shared understanding. There may also be challenges of patients receiving potentially too little or too much information when families say “don’t tell” or due to asynchronous electronic results delivery respectively. How much patients want to know and how and when they get information can be clarified through preparatory discussions. Finally, medical errors are another form of serious news that require an apology along with the headline.