BackgroundThe communication of prognosis represents an ethical and clinical challenge in medical practice due to the inherent uncertain character of prognostic projections. The literature has stressed that the mode of communicating prognoses has an impact on patients’ hope, which is considered to play a major role in adapting to illness and disability. In light of this, this study aims to explore health professionals’ (HPs) perceptions of the role of hope in rehabilitation and to examine if and how they use strategies to maintain hope when discussing prognostic information with patients.MethodsEleven qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of HPs were conducted at two rehabilitation clinics in the Canton of Ticino, Switzerland. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe HPs perceive hope in rehabilitation as a double-edged sword. Three main strategies were identified to maintain hope while avoiding false hope: 1) giving space for self-evaluation; 2) tailoring the communication of prognostic information; and 3) supporting the patient in dealing with the prognosis. These strategies are particularly suitable when HPs consider that patients might not be ready to accept the prognosis, due to their expectations for recovery.ConclusionsThe strategies identified here support a person-centered approach to the communication of prognosis and are in line with existing protocols for the communication of unfavorable medical information. The findings emphasize the need for strengthening communication and inter-professional collaboration skills of rehabilitation HPs.

BackgroundMaximizing the utilization of the operating room suite by safely and efficiently changing over patients is an opportunity to deliver more value to patients and be more efficient in the operating suite. Lean Thinking is a concept that focuses on the waste inadvertently generated during organization and development of an activity, which should maximize customer value while minimizing waste. It has been widely applied to increase process efficiency and foster continuous improvement in healthcare and in the operating room environment. The objective of this paper is to provide insight on how healthcare professionals can be engaged in continuous improvement by embracing Lean Thinking and ultimately reducing changeover time between surgeries.MethodsUsing an action research approach, Lean methodology such as Gemba walks, Process Mapping, Root-Cause-Analysis, and the Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED) system was applied to understand the causes of variability and wastes concerning changeovers and improve processes in the context of gynecological- and general surgery. Data were collected and analyzed through observations and video recordings. Problem and issue have been raised to management team attention and included in the annual balanced scorecard of the hospital. This initiative has been also made relevant to the team working in the operating suite and related processes before and after the entry of the patient in the operating suite.ResultsImproved patient flow and inter-professional collaboration through standardized and safer work enabled effective parallel processing and allowed the hospital to reduce changeover time between operations by 25% on average, without changes in terms of infrastructure, technology or resources.ConclusionLean thinking allowed the team to re-evaluate how the whole operating suite performs as a system, by starting from a sub-process as changeover. It is fundamental in order to improve further and obtain sustainable results over time, to act on a system level by defining a common goal between all stakeholders supported by a management and leading system such as visual/weekly management, optimizing planning, implementing standard-works to be followed by every associate and guaranteeing the role of the surgeon as process driver who pull performances.

Communicating an unfavourable prognosis while maintaining patient hope represents a critical challenge for healthcare professionals (HPs). Duty requires respect for the right to patient autonomy while at the same time not doing harm by causing hopelessness and demoralisation. In some cases, the need for therapeutic privilege is discussed. The primary objectives of this study were to explore HPs’ perceptions of hope in the prognosis communication and investigate how they interpret and operationalise key ethical principles. Sixteen qualitative semistructured interviews with HPs from different positions and experience, including doctors and nurses in four different departments (intensive care, oncology, palliative care, rehabilitation), were conducted in the Ticino Cantonal Hospital, Switzerland. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. HPs defined prognosis and patient hope as interdependent concepts related to future perspectives for subjective quality of life. Two main factors allow HPs to maximise the benefits and minimise the harm of their communication: respecting the patient’s timing and sharing the patient’s wishes. Time is required to reframe needs and expectations. Furthermore, communication needs to be shared by HPs, patients and their relatives to build common awareness and promote a person-centred approach to prognosis. In this process, interprofessional collaboration is key: doctors and nurses are complementary and can together guarantee that patients and relatives receive information in the most appropriate form when they need it. Organisational aspects and the HPs’ emotional difficulties, particularly in coping with their own despair, are barriers to effective communication that need further investigation.