Patient preferences regarding intraoperative versus external beam radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery.

The TARGIT-A Trial is an international randomized, prospective trial comparing intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for equivalence to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) following lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer in selected low-risk patients; early results suggest that outcomes are similar. In addition to effectiveness data and cost considerations, the preferences of patients should help inform practice. This study was undertaken to explore and quantify preference in choosing between IORT and the current standard, EBRT. Eligible subjects were current or past candidates for breast-conserving surgery and radiation being seen at the University of California, San Francisco Breast Care Center. A trade-off technique varying the risk of local recurrence for IORT was used to quantify any additional accepted risk that these patients would accept to receive either treatment. Patients were first presented with a slideshow comparing EBRT with the experimental IORT option before being asked their preferences given hypothetical 10-year local recurrence risks. Patients were then given a questionnaire on demographic, social and clinical factors. Data from 81 patients were analyzed. The median additional accepted risk to have IORT was 2.3 % (-9 to 39 %), mean 3.2 %. Only 7 patients chose to accept additional risk for EBRT; 22 accepted IORT at no additional risk; and the remaining 52 chose IORT with some additional risk. Patients weigh trade-offs of risks and benefits when presented with medical treatment choices. Our results show that the majority of breast cancer patients will accept a small increment of local risk for a simpler delivery of radiation. Further studies that incorporate outcome and side effect data from the TARGIT-A trial clarify the expected consequences of a local recurrence, and include an expanded range of radiation options that could help guide clinical decision making in this area.

Safety in the home healthcare sector: development of a new household safety checklist.

OBJECTIVES: Unsafe household conditions could adversely affect safety and quality in home health care. However, risk identification tools and procedures that can be readily implemented in this setting are lacking. To address this need, we developed and tested a new household safety checklist and accompanying training program. METHODS: A 50-item, photo-illustrated, multi-hazard checklist was designed as a tool to enable home healthcare paraprofessionals (HHCPs) to conduct visual safety inspections in patients' homes. The checklist focused on hazards presenting the greatest threat to the safety of seniors. A convenience sample of 57 HHCPs was recruited to participate in a 1-hour training program, followed by pilot testing of the checklist in their patients' households. Checklist data from 116 patient homes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative feedback on the inspection process was provided by HHCPs participating in a focus group. RESULTS: Pretesting and posttesting determined that the training program was effective; participating HHCPs' ability to identify household hazards significantly improved after training (P<0.001). Using the checklist, HHCPs were able to identify unsafe conditions, including fire safety deficiencies, fall hazards, unsanitary conditions, and problems with medication management. Home healthcare paraprofessionals reported that the checklist was easy to use and that inspections were well accepted by patients. Inspections took roughly 20 minutes to conduct. CONCLUSIONS: Home healthcare paraprofessionals can be effectively trained to identify commonplace household hazards. Using this checklist as a guide, visual household inspections were easily performed by trained HHCPS. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the reliability of the checklist and to determine if hazard identification leads to interventions that improve performance outcomes.