Care coordination, consistency and continuity: the case of the key worker role in children's cancer care.

Publisher: Taylor & Francis Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101256506 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1748-2631 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17482623 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2016- : Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis
Original Publication: London ; New York : Taylor & Francis, c2006-

Neoplasms*/therapy ; Parents*/psychology; Adolescent ; Child ; England ; Humans ; Long-Term Care ; Surveys and Questionnaires

Purpose: The overall aim was to evaluate the key worker role across principal treatment centres for children with cancer in England, Wales and Scotland.
Methods: Mixed-methods case study gathering data from multiple perspectives using questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and reports/performance documents over a two-year period. Framework approach was adopted to analyse transcripts and documentary data.
Results: Participants included: 22 nurse specialist key workers, 103 parents, 85 professionals and 10 children/young people. Qualitative and quantitative data were woven together, to best illuminate key worker services. Four main models of care were described as well as the context of care and process of care. Key working effectiveness centred around three pillars: care coordination; expert knowledge, experience and expertise; relationship. These were essential to improved family experience, emotional wellbeing, and delivery of individualized care closer to home.
Conclusions: The role is complex and diverse, responding to local needs. Certain conditions, (e.g., high caseload) placed limits on enacting the three pillars, diminishing the positive experience of families. When they worked well, key workers reduced the fragmented nature of services and families placed great value on keeping the same key worker from diagnosis into long-term care. Retaining these roles, where already in place, or including, if not, we would recommend, factoring into budgets to sustain and expand such roles.

Child Care Health Dev. 2003 Jan;29(1):35-45. (PMID: 12534565)
Psychooncology. 2021 Jan 5;:. (PMID: 33403751)
Clin Nurse Spec. 2017 Sep/Oct;31(5):252-260. (PMID: 28806231)
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 29;10(3):e036112. (PMID: 32229525)
Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):157-63. (PMID: 26509202)
BMJ. 2003 Nov 22;327(7425):1219-21. (PMID: 14630762)
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1324-e1331. (PMID: 32584702)
Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Mar;32(2):147-57. (PMID: 16441849)
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016 Oct;24:70-78. (PMID: 27697279)
Cancer. 2011 Aug;117(15 Suppl):3539-42. (PMID: 21780088)
J Adv Nurs. 2012 Sep;68(9):2034-46. (PMID: 22141330)
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2021 May;30(3):e13415. (PMID: 33501707)
Int J Integr Care. 2016 May 31;16(2):12. (PMID: 27616967)
Psychol Health. 2022 May;37(5):597-614. (PMID: 33449823)
World J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 24;11(9):705-722. (PMID: 33033693)
BMJ Open. 2015 May 11;5(5):e006840. (PMID: 25967990)
Child Care Health Dev. 2004 May;30(3):233-9; discussion 241. (PMID: 15104580)
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8. (PMID: 18416914)
Child Care Health Dev. 1992 Sep-Oct;18(5):259-82. (PMID: 1394855)
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021 Feb 10;16(1):76. (PMID: 33568181)
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2021 Mar;41:1-8. (PMID: 33830828)
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2013 Winter;23(1):44-62. (PMID: 23617218)

Keywords: Key worker; cancer; care provision; children; evaluation; nurse specialist; nursing

Date Created: 20220627 Date Completed: 20220628 Latest Revision: 20220716

20221213

PMC9246033

10.1080/17482631.2022.2092958

35757984