RESUMEN
Introduction: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) are at increased risk of infection. CLL is associated with a secondary immunodeficiency and impaired response to vaccination. Recent British Society of Haematology guidelines recommend that patients with CLL should receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection at diagnosis, an annual influenza vaccine and COVID-19 vaccination. Patients aged 70-79 years should also receive the Shingrix vaccine. Patients with CLL should not receive live vaccines. In response to this guideline, a letter detailing vaccination requirements was created for patients to give to their general practitioner (GP). The local process for vaccination referral has since changed. Previously, vaccination requirements were communicated to the GP via letter. There is now a dedicated Vaccination Hub to which clinicians can directly refer patients for appropriate vaccinations. Aim(s): The aim of this project was to assess vaccination referral and vaccination status in patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Method(s): All new diagnoses of CLL from 2021 to 2022 were identified by review of the Haematology Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting electronic registration forms. Electronic patient records were reviewed to determine vaccination referral completion and vaccination status. Result(s): A total of 29 patients were identified as new diagnoses of CLL. Seventeen patients were diagnosed in 2021 and 12 in 2022. Sixty-nine percent of the patients were male and the average age was 70.9 years. Vaccination was discussed with 11 patients (38%) and 10 patients (34%) were referred for vaccination. Eleven patients (38%) had never received a pneumococcal vaccine. Nine patients (31%) had previously received the vaccine but not within the past 5 years. Five patients (17%) patients had received one dose of Pneumovax 23 following referral. No patients had received the initial Prevenar 13 vaccine. Twelve patients (41%) had not received an influenza vaccine. Of those who had received the vaccine, the majority (70%) had received this routinely. Similarly, 71% of patients had received the COVID-19 vaccine routinely as opposed to three patients who received this postreferral. Of those who were eligible, 50% had received the Shingrix vaccine. Conclusion/Discussion: Local rates of vaccination in patients with CLL are low. Numbers were too small to allow for comparison between the methods of referral. Of those referred, not all received the appropriate vaccinations. Further work is therefore required to improve both the number and completion of the referrals. Future steps will include local teaching on vaccinations in CLL and the referral pathway.
RESUMEN
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed great strain on standard outpatient services including those with IBD. There has been interest in using guided self-management and patient-initiated review to allow patients to manage their condition, while at the same time reserving outpatient capacity for those needing seen urgently. We developed a pathway for patients with stable ulcerative proctitis, which included a leaflet on symptom managment and when to contact the IBD nurses if ongoing symptoms. Method(s): Patients were identified from clinic lists cancelled during the pandemic who had a diagnosis of ulcerative proctitis. Case notes were reviewed to ensure a correct diagnosis and inclusion criteria met(stable disease, no immunosuppressant treatment). These patients were sent a Guided Self-Management leaflet in the post. A follow on questionnaire was sent 6 months after ensuring patients were happy with the information received. Non-responders were sent a second questionnaire and/or telephone call. Result(s): 37 Patients were identified. We received responses (via post, phone or email) from 28/37 patients (76%). 10/28 (36%) didn't receive or do not recall receiving the leaflet. 18/28 (64%) received the leaflet. Of those who received the leaflet, 16/18 felt it was easy to understand and contained enough information to confidently manage their symptoms. 2 patients had 1 flare and 3 patients had multiple flares after receiving the leaflet. Of those with flares, 2 patients were able to self-manage their proctitis using the guided self help information. 2 patients had to contact the IBD nurses. These patients were called back within 24 hours and received useful advice. One patient had forgotten to use the leaflet. No one required rescue steroids or admission to hospital. Overall, 17/18 (94%) felt the service was good or excellent compared to previous clinic review systems. Conclusion(s): These results suggest patients are receptive to using guided self-management and patient-initiated review. Although we were not expecting to see many flares, given the low risk selected group, the results suggest patients can successfully manage flares and contact our services for support if required. It is a concern a significant proportion of patients did not recall receiving the leaflet. Although this is a small subgroup, the results show clinic time can be saved which remains a pressurised resource as we recover from the pandemic. The principles of guided self management and patient initiated review could be applied to other patient groups(eg stable UC patients not on immunosuppressants). In future it would be important to ensure patients receive and understand the leaflet. A clinic appointment prior to discharge into such pathways should be considered.
RESUMEN
Introduction With secondary care services transitioning into virtual and telephone consultations our aim was to minimise face to face routine appointments during the Covid 19 pandemic for patients with stable ulcerative proctitis. We assessed patient satisfaction of the guided self-management leaflet and whether this can be adopted long term for this patient group. Methods From our IBD database we identified all patients with a coded diagnosis of 'proctitis'. Clinical portal notes and previous colonoscopies were reviewed to ensure correct diagnosis. Only patients with stable disease - minimal contact with IBD nurses, no recent admissions, infrequent flares were included. Identified patients were sent a Guided Self-Management leaflet in the post and a follow-on response questionnaire was sent around 6 months later. For non-responders a second questionnaire and/or telephone was arranged. Results 37 Patients were identified. We received responses (via post, phone or email) from 28/37 patients (76%). 10/28 (36%) didn't receive or do not recall receiving the leaflet.18/ 28 received the leaflet (64%). of those who received the leaflet, 16/18 felt it was easy to understand and contained enough information to confidently manage their symptoms. 2 patients had 1 flare and 3 patients had more than 3 flares since receiving the leaflet. of those with flares 2 patients were able to self-manage their proctitis using the leaflet provided. 2 patients had to contact the IBD nurses. These patients were called back within 24 hours and received useful advice. One patient had forgotten to use the leaflet. No one required rescue steroids or admission to hospital. Overall, 17/18 (94%) felt the service was good or excellent compared to previous clinic review systems. Conculsions The above results suggest the Self Guided Management Leaflets in this low symptom burden proctitis group are safe and easy to use. Overall feedback of the leaflet was positive and allowed the vast majority of patients to selfmanage their symptoms without the input of the IBD nurses. The main limitations of this study were leaflet distribution and questionnaire response. Issues included: wrong patient address, the leaflet being thrown away and patients forgetting to use it during a flare. We therefore suggest all patients identified have a Face-to-Face appointment at point of diagnosis or subsequently with an IBD nurse to issue and discuss leaflet. This will ensure each patient receives the leaflet and hopefully improve engagement with self-managing flares. We plan to repeat the survey in 6-12 months with a larger patient group.