Clinical Action
Cross-source consensus on Clinical Action from 1 sources and 5 claims.
1 sources · 5 claims
Uses
How it works
Benefits
Highlighted claims
- Nearly two-thirds of NAT-C consultations identified unmet needs requiring attention. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
- More than three-quarters of identified needs led to action. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
- NAT-C worked by prompting holistic enquiry into needs that might otherwise remain hidden. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
- Clinical action could include primary care management, action by another team member, or external referral. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer
- The tool helped clinicians structure person-centred conversations and agree clinical actions with patients. — Mixed methods process theory evaluation to explore the implementation issues of the Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) in primary care for people with cancer