Quality of life support in advanced cancer-web and technological interventions: systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: As treatments continue to progress, patients with advanced cancer are living longer. However, ongoing physical side-effects and psychosocial concerns can compromise quality of life (QoL). Patients and physicians increasingly look to the internet and other technologies to address diverse supportive needs encountered across this evolving cancer trajectory. OBJECTIVES: 1. To examine the features and delivery of web and technological interventions supporting patients with advanced cancer. 2. To explore their efficacy relating to QoL and psychosocial well-being. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and ProQuest) and handsearching. Findings were collated and explored through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of 5274 identified records, 37 articles were included. Interventions were evaluated within studies targeting advanced cancer (13) or encompassing all stages (24). Five subtypes emerged: Interactive Health Communication Applications (n=12), virtual programmes of support (n=11), symptom monitoring tools (n=8), communication conduits (n=3) and information websites (n=3). Modes of delivery ranged from self-management to clinically integrated. Support largely targeted psychosocial well-being, alongside symptom management and healthy living. Most studies (78%) evidenced varying degrees of efficacy through QoL and psychosocial measures. Intervention complexity made it challenging to distinguish the most effective components. Incomplete reporting limited risk of bias assessment. CONCLUSION: While complex and varied in their content, features and delivery, most interventions led to improvements in QoL or psychosocial well-being across the cancer trajectory. Ongoing development and evaluation of such innovations should specifically target patients requiring longer-term support for later-stage cancer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018089153.

Clinical and microbiological investigation into mixed growth urine cultures.

Introduction. Urine samples submitted for investigation of urinary tract infection (UTI) may identify more than one bacterial isolate. These samples may be reported as 'mixed growth urine culture' (MGUC). The clinical significance of MGUC remains controversial.Hypothesis/Gap Statement. The impact of MGUC on patient management is not known and should be assessed. To describe MGUC and assess its impact on patient management.Methodology. Microbiology laboratory reports (Leeds, UK) were retrospectively analysed and urine cultures reported as MGUC from a 1 week period underwent detailed laboratory analysis. Semi-structured interviews of NHS clinicians' response to MGUC reports were explored for emergent themes.Results. In 2018, 12.4 % (14,323/115,664) of urine specimens processed to detect bacterial pathogens were reported as MGUC. Among a total of 200 MGUC samples identified within 1 week in 2019, detailed laboratory analysis identified 459 bacterial isolates. Enterococcus species (30.1 %) and Escherichia coli (27.5 %) were the most frequently isolated and the most frequent organism combination (24 %). In total, 65.5 % cultures contained two organisms and 82.5 % of all MGUC contained at least one Enterobacterales. Interviews found clinicians believed MGUC reports represented detection of many commensal bacteria. Clinicians indicated they were more likely to diagnose and treat a UTI when provided with urine culture reports derived from detailed microbial analysis of MGUC, including identity and antibiotic sensitivity of organisms.Conclusions. This study highlights the potential underuse of information derived from microbiological analysis of urine samples. Interpretive commentary on reports together with education for interpretation of enhanced reports should be explored further to improve outcomes in patients with UTI.

Development of a biotensegrity focused therapy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP), the bulging of pelvic organs into the vagina, is a common condition thought to be caused by weak pelvic tissue. There is a paucity of evidence supporting current treatment approaches. This case series proposes a new biotensegrity-focused hypothesis that POP is caused by taut pelvic tissue and that releasing pelvic tension will improve POP. METHODS: Three retrospective patient cohorts are presented illustrating the development of the new biotensegrity-focused therapy (BFT) approach. All women received: postural assessment; pelvic tissue examination; and myofascial release of taut pelvic tissue, trigger points, and scar tissue. A standard assessment protocol (SOTAP) recorded patients' Subjective experience, the therapist's Objective assessment, the Treatment plan, Assessment of treatment outcomes, and subsequent treatment and self-care Plans. Cohort three additionally self-reported symptoms using the short-form PDFI-20 questionnaire at baseline and after final treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-three women participated (Cohort 1 n = 7; Cohort 2 n = 7; Cohort 3 n = 9). Fourteen (61%) presented with cystocele, 10 (44%) urethracele, 7 (30%), cervical descent, and 17 (74%) rectocele. Seven (30%) presented with single prolapse, 8 (35%) double, 6 (26%) triple, and 2 (9%) quadruple. Median treatments received was 5 (range 3-8). All women reported improved prolapse symptoms. Cohort 3 (n = 9) reported clinically meaningful reductions (mean 56%) in PFDI-20 total after final treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This case series offers preliminary evidence for the association between POP and pelvic tissue tension. Further research is needed to explore these findings and to determine the efficacy of BFT for treating POP in a wider sample.

Cancer as a chronic illness: support needs and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are living longer with active, advanced or metastatic disease that cannot be cured, but may be managed (ie, 'chronic cancer'). The experiences and needs within this growing group are likely to be different from those shortly after diagnosis, on active curative treatment, or in the palliative or end-of-life phase, yet are poorly defined. We described chronic cancer patient experiences and support needs in a quantitative, multicentre cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients from five district general hospitals in England completed the 75-item Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ). Responses were described and linear regression analysis was performed to explore the associations between poorer patient experiences and clinical/sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: In total, 416 patients with prostate cancer (28%), breast cancer (24%), gynaecological cancer (19%), colorectal/gastrointestinal cancer (17%) and renal cancer (12%) completed the CCEQ (response rate 90%). Younger patients, those who had a longer interval between primary and advanced diagnosis and those not in a relationship, had worse experiences (R2=0.098, p<0.05). Cancer-specific symptoms were common, with 80% of participants experiencing fatigue. Areas related to poorest experiences include the coordination of care, general practitioner involvement, coping with limitations, and worries and anxieties. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological burden remains high in the chronic phase of cancer, and patients experience ongoing difficulties in accessing support and services. Younger patients who have been ill for longer and those who have less social support may be particularly vulnerable, and future studies are needed to investigate the best way to meet the unique needs of this growing patient population.

'If you can't see a dilemma in this situation you should probably regard it as a warning': a metasynthesis and theoretical modelling of general practitioners' opioid prescription experiences in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: The prescribing of opioids has increased internationally in developed countries in recent decades within primary and secondary care. The majority of patients with chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) are managed by their general practitioner (GP). Recent qualitative studies have examined the issue of opioid prescribing for CNMP from a GP viewpoint. The aim of this study is to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature describing the factors influencing the nature and extent of opioid prescribing by GPs for patients with CNMP in primary care. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1986 to February 2018. The full text of included articles was reviewed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research. The papers were coded by two researchers and themes organised using Thematic Network Analysis. Themes were constructed in a hierarchical manner, basic themes informed organising themes which informed global themes. A theoretical model was derived using global themes to explain the interplay between factors influencing opioid prescribing decisions. RESULTS: From 7020 records, 21 full text papers were assessed, and 13 studies included in the synthesis; 9 were from the United States, 3 from the United Kingdom and 1 from Canada. Four global themes emerged: suspicion, risk, agreement and encompassing systems level factors. These global themes are inter-related and capture the complex decision-making processes underlying opioid prescribing whereby the physician both consciously and unconsciously quantifies the risk-benefit relationship associated with initiating or continuing an opioid prescription. CONCLUSION: Recognising the inherent complexity of opioid prescribing and the limitations of healthcare systems is crucial to developing opioid stewardship strategies to combat the rise in opioid prescription morbidity and mortality.

Evaluating the experiences and support needs of people living with chronic cancer: development and initial validation of the Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ).

BACKGROUND: Many advanced cancers are managed as chronic diseases, yet there are currently no international guidelines for the support of patients living with chronic cancer. It is important to understand whether care and service arrangements meet the needs of this rapidly growing patient group. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to capture patients' experiences of living with chronic cancer and their views of clinical and support services. METHODS: The research was carried out between 1 July 2010 and 21 February 2013. A conceptual framework and initial item bank were derived from prior interviews with 56 patients with chronic cancer. Items were reviewed by 4 oncologists and 1 clinical nurse specialist and during 2 focus groups with 9 patients. Pilot questionnaires were completed by 416 patients across 5 cancer units. Item selection and scale reliability was explored using descriptive data, exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency analyses, multitrait scaling analyses and known-groups comparisons. RESULTS: The final Chronic Cancer Experiences Questionnaire (CCEQ) includes 75 items. 62 items contribute to 14 subscales with internal consistency between α 0·68-0·88 and minimal scaling errors. Known-groups comparisons confirmed subscale utility in distinguishing between patient groups. Subscales were labelled: managing appointments, coordination of care, general practitioner involvement, clinical trials, information and questions, making treatment decisions, symptom non-reporting, key worker, limitations, sustaining normality, financial advice, worries and anxieties, sharing feelings with others, and accessing support. 13 items assessing symptom experiences were retained as single items. CONCLUSIONS: The CCEQ has the potential to be used as a clinical instrument to assess patient experiences of chronic cancer or to screen for patient needs. It may also be used as an outcome measure for evaluating programmes and models of care and may identify areas for service development that could ultimately improve the care and support received by patients with chronic cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-hospital diagnostic accuracy studies.

INTRODUCTION: Paramedics are involved in examining, treating and diagnosing patients. The accuracy of these diagnoses is evaluated using diagnostic accuracy studies. We undertook a systematic review of published literature to provide an overview of how accurately paramedics diagnose patients compared with hospital doctors. A bivariate meta-analysis was incorporated to examine the range of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, AMED and the Cochrane Database from 1946 to 7 May 2016 for studies where patients had been given a diagnosis by paramedics and hospital doctors. Keywords focused on study type ('diagnostic accuracy'), outcomes (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio?, predictive value?) and setting (paramedic*, pre-hospital, ambulance, 'emergency service?', 'emergency medical service?', 'emergency technician?'). RESULTS: 2941 references were screened by title and/or abstract. Eleven studies encompassing 384 985 patients were included after full-text review. The types of diagnoses in one of the studies encompassed all possible diagnoses and in the other studies focused on sepsis, stroke and myocardial infarction. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 32% to 100% and specificity estimates from 14% to 100%. Eight of the studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and were incorporated into a meta-analysis which showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.74 (0.62 to 0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.94 (0.87 to 0.97). DISCUSSION: Current published research suggests that diagnoses made by paramedics have high sensitivity and even higher specificity. However, the paucity and varying quality of studies indicates that further prehospital diagnostic accuracy studies are warranted especially in the field of non-life-threatening conditions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039306.

Asking the right questions to get the right answers: using cognitive interviews to review the acceptability, comprehension and clinical meaningfulness of patient self-report adverse event items in oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: Standardized reporting of treatment-related adverse events (AE) is essential in clinical trials, usually achieved by using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) reported by clinicians. Patient-reported adverse events (PRAE) may add value to clinician assessments, providing patient perspective on subjective toxicity. We developed an online patient symptom report and self-management system for real-time reporting and managing AE during cancer treatment integrated with electronic patient records (eRAPID). As part of this program we developed a patient version of the CTCAE (version 4.0), rephrasing terminology into a self-report format. We explored patient understanding of these items via cognitive interviews. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Sixty patients (33 female, 27 male) undergoing treatment were purposively sampled by age, gender and tumor group (median age 61.5, range 35-84, 12 breast, 12 gynecological, 13 colorectal, 12 lung and 11 renal). Twenty-one PRAE items were completed on a touch-screen computer. Subsequent audio-recorded cognitive interviews and thematic analysis explored patients' comprehension of items via verbal probing techniques during three interview rounds (n = 20 patients/round). RESULTS: In total 33 item amendments were made; 29% related to question comprehension, 68% response option and 3% order effects. These amendments to phrasing and language improved patient understanding but maintained CTCAE grading and key medical information. Changes were endorsed by members of a patient advisory group (N = 11). CONCLUSION: Item adaptations resulted in a bank of consistently interpreted self-report AE items for use in future research program. In-depth analysis of items through cognitive interviews is an important step towards developing an internationally valid system for PRAE, thus improving patient safety and experiences during cancer treatment.

The role of the intermediate care team in detecting and responding to loneliness in older clients.

The intermediate care team supports patients in their own homes to manage complex needs. They are ideally placed in the community to identify older adults at risk of loneliness. However, little is known about how intermediate care team professionals perceive, detect or respond to loneliness in their clients. This study explores intermediate care team professionals' attitudes to loneliness in the context of perceived service priorities and their experiences of managing loneliness in their clients. Eight professionals (n=2 physiotherapists, n=3 occupational therapists, n=3 nurses) took part in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed thematically using framework analysis, applying the theory of planned behaviour as an interpretive framework. Intermediate care team professionals see loneliness as a significant issue for many of their older clients but a low priority for intermediate care team services. They believe that loneliness often goes undetected because it is difficult to measure objectively. Barriers to managing loneliness included high workloads, unsatisfactory referral systems and lack of close working with social care and independent sector services. Brief but reliable loneliness assessments into routine practice, receiving training on detecting and managing loneliness, and improving working relationships with social care and independent sector services were highlighted as strategies that could improve the detection and management of loneliness in intermediate care team clients.