Poster Presentation COSA 2015 ASM

Prostate Cancer Clinical Nurse Coordinator (PC-CNC) Role: Qualitative Exploration of the Coordinator Intervention Impact (#318)

Rebecca E Hill 1 , Shab Mireskandari 2 3 , Narelle Hanly 2 , Andrew Brooks 4 , Phyllis Butow 1 2 3 , Ilona Juraskova 1 2
  1. School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  2. Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  3. Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  4. Western Urology, Westmead Private Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia

Aims: Many prostate cancer (PC) patients report unmet informational, sexual, urological and psychosocial needs. Patients also often feel disoriented within the healthcare system. UK research shows the benefit of a PC-CNC role, but no studies have systematically investigated such a role within Australia. Our team recently completed a pre-post PC-CNC intervention study with 100 Australian men newly diagnosed with PC, assessing their satisfaction with care coordination, psychological wellbeing, unmet needs and sexual/urinary/bowel function pre-, 3 and 6 months post-treatment. The current qualitative sub-study aimed to explore and compare the experiences of men who received the PC-CNC intervention with those who received standard care.

Methods: Approximately 20 out of the 100men who participated in the PC-CNC quantitative study underwent semi-structured telephone interviews, until data saturation was reached. Stratified purposive sampling was employed based on the cohort (intervention/control group), PC-CNC satisfaction (questionnaire-based), age, and time since diagnosis. Transcribed interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

Results: Preliminary qualitative findings indicate that the PC-CNC complemented standard healthcare through the provision of information, practical advice, emotional support and referrals to other support services. All patients reported that the PC-CNC was experienced, accessible, and compassionate. However, some patients did not fully utilise the PC-CNC service, either choosing to independently obtain information from external sources or not wanting to engage in cancer support due to an avoidant coping style. Many patients who received standard care expressed a desire for greater care coordination and unmet information needs.

Conclusion: This is the first Australian study to explore patients’ perspectives on the introduction of a clearly defined PC-CNC role. It highlights how unique the PC-CNC role is within the Australian healthcare system, potentially addressing patients’ unmet needs. The identification of barriers to the use of the PC-CNC has important implications for future intervention effectiveness and dissemination.