Learning from hospital deaths.

Current guidelines and regulations require trusts to take full responsibility for deaths within their premises. Higher than expected deaths indicate poor standards of care or negligence. NHS Trusts need to put systems in place to ensure that they learn and extrapolate risk factors through in-depth review of care provided to patients prior to their deaths, curb and ultimately diminish relative mortality through improved practices, and improve care and safety for the whole organisation. Mortality reviews can provide insight into the standard of care that dying patients receive; this matters as NHS Hospitals are the main providers of terminal care, nationally.

Percutaneous cervical cordotomy for cancer-related pain: national data.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous cervical cordotomy (PCC) is an interventional ablative procedure in the armamentarium for cancer pain treatment, but there is limited evidence to support its use. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of PCC. METHODS: Analysis was undertaken of the first national (UK) prospective data repository of adult patients with cancer undergoing PCC for pain treatment. The relationship between pain and other outcomes before and after PCC was examined using appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: Data on 159 patients' PCCs (performed from 1 January 2012 to 6 June 2017 in three centres) were assessed: median (IQR) age was 66 (58-71) years, 47 (30%) were female. Mesothelioma was the most common primary malignancy (57%). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis to PCC assessment was 13.3 (6.2-23.2) months; PCC to follow-up was 9 (8-25) days; and survival after PCC was 1.3 (0.6-2.8) months. The mean (SD) for 'average pain' using a numerical rating scale was 6 (2) before PCC and 2 (2) at follow-up, and for 'worst pain' 9 (1) and 3 (3), respectively. The median (IQR) reduction in strong opioid dose at follow-up was 50% (34-50). With the exception of 'activity', all health-related quality of life scores (5-level version of EuroQol-5 Dimension) either improved or were stable after PCC. Six patients (4%) had PCC-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: PCC is an effective treatment for cancer pain; however, findings in this study suggest PCC referrals tended to be late in patients' disease trajectories. Further study into earlier treatment and seeking international consensus on PCC outcomes will further enhance opportunities to improve patient care.

Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation. DISCUSSION: This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: development of consultation guides through lay and professional stakeholder coproduction using qualitative, quantitative and secondary data.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause all cervical cancer and the majority of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. Although HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, public awareness of this is poor. In addition, many clinicians lack adequate knowledge or confidence to discuss sexual transmission and related sensitive issues. Complex science needs to be communicated in a clear, digestible, honest and salient way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to coproduce with patients who have cancer appropriate resources to guide these highly sensitive and difficult consultations. METHODS: A matrix of evidence developed from a variety of sources, including a systematic review and telephone interviews with clinicians, supported the production of a draft list of approximately 100 potential educational messages. These were refined in face-to-face patient interviews using card-sorting techniques, and tested in cognitive debrief interviews to produce a â€Ëœfast and frugal’ knowledge tool. RESULTS: We developed three versions of a consultation guide, each comprising a clinician guidance sheet and patient information leaflet for gynaecological (cervical, vaginal, vulvar), anal or oropharyngeal cancers. That cancer could be caused by a sexually transmitted virus acquired many years previously was surprising to many and shocking to a few patients. However, they found the information clear, helpful and reassuring. Clinicians acknowledged a lack of confidence in explaining HPV, welcomed the clinician guidance sheets and considered printed information for patients particularly useful. CONCLUSION: Because of the â€Ëœshock factor’, clinicians will need to approach the discussion of HPV with sensitivity and take individual needs and preferences into account, but we provide a novel, rigorously developed and tested resource which should have broad applicability in the UK National Health Service and other health systems.

Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: protocol for a patient-centred study to develop scripted consultations.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent infection with sexually transmitted, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is the cause of all cervical cancers and some anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. HPV is an extremely common asymptomatic infection but little known and poorly understood by the public. Patients with HPV-related cancers have new and challenging information needs due to the complex natural history of HPV and the stigma of sexual transmission. They may ask questions that are outside the remit of the traditional cancer consultation, and there is a lack of guidance on how to counsel them. This study aims to fulfil that need by developing and testing cancer site-specific scripted consultations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A synthesis of findings generated from previous work, a systematic review of information-based interventions for patients with HPV-related cancers, and interviews with cancer clinicians will provide the evidence base underpinning provisional messages. These will be explored in three phases of face-to-face interviews with 75-90 purposively selected patients recruited in cancer clinics to: (1) select and prioritise the most salient messages, (2) phrase the messages appropriately in plain English and, (3) test their acceptability and usefulness. Phases 1 and 2 will draw on card-sorting methods used in website design. In phase three, we will create cancer site-specific versions of the script and test them using cognitive interviewing techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The final product will be cancer-specific scripted consultations, most likely in the form of a two-sided information sheet with the most important messages to be conveyed in a consultation on one side, and frequently asked questions for later reading on the reverse. However, they will also be appropriate and readily adaptable to web-based uses.

Patient-reported measurement of time to diagnosis in cancer: development of the Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM) and randomised controlled trial of method of delivery.

BACKGROUND: The duration between first symptom and a cancer diagnosis is important because, if shortened, may lead to earlier stage diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes. We have previously developed a tool to measure this duration in newly-diagnosed patients. In this two-phase study, we aimed further improve our tool and to conduct a trial comparing levels of anxiety between two modes of delivery: self-completed versus researcher-administered. METHODS: In phase 1, ten patients completed the modified tool and participated in cognitive debrief interviews. In phase 2, we undertook a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of the revised tool (Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM)) in three hospitals for 11 different cancers. Respondents were invited to provide either exact or estimated dates of first noticing symptoms and presenting them to primary care. The primary outcome was anxiety related to delivery mode, with completeness of recording as a secondary outcome. Dates from a subset of patients were compared with GP records. RESULTS: After analysis of phase 1 interviews, the wording and format were improved. In phase 2, 201 patients were randomised (93 self-complete and 108 researcher-complete). Anxiety scores were significantly lower in the researcher-completed group, with a mean rank of 83.5; compared with the self-completed group, with a mean rank of 104.0 (Mann-Whitney U = 3152, p = 0.007). Completeness of data was significantly better in the researcher-completed group, with no statistically significant difference in time taken to complete the tool between the two groups. When comparing the dates in the patient questionnaires with those in the GP records, there was evidence in the records of a consultation on the same date or within a proscribed time window for 32/37 (86%) consultations; for estimated dates there was evidence for 23/37 consultations (62%). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested a tool for collecting patient-reported data relating to appraisal intervals, help-seeking intervals, and diagnostic intervals in the cancer diagnostic pathway for 11 separate cancers, and provided evidence of its acceptability, feasibility and validity. This is a useful tool to use in descriptive and epidemiological studies of cancer diagnostic journeys, and causes less anxiety if administered by a researcher.

Determining patient and primary care delay in the diagnosis of cancer - lessons from a pilot study of patients referred for suspected cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no validated way of measuring diagnostic delay in cancer, especially covering patient and primary care delays. An instrument is needed in order to determine the effect of potential interventions to reduce delay and improve cancer morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Development of a postal questionnaire tool to measure patient and primary care time responses to key symptoms and signs. The pilot questionnaire was sent to 184 patients with suspected cancer. RESULTS: The response rate was only 85/184 (46.2%). Anxiety was cited as one reason for this low response. Patients returning questionnaires were more likely to be women and more likely to be younger. 84/85 (98.8%) provided consent to access medical records, and questions regarding health profile, smoking and socio-economic profile were answered adequately. Outcome data on their cancer diagnosis was linked satisfactorily and the question about GP-initiated investigations was answered well. Estimated dates for symptom duration were preferred for patient delays, but exact dates were preferred for primary care delays; however there was a significant amount of missing data. CONCLUSION: A more personal approach to the collection of data about the duration of symptoms in this group of people is needed other than a postal questionnaire. However elements of this piloted questionnaire are likely to figure strongly in future development and evaluation of this tool.

Low-dose methadone has an analgesic effect in neuropathic pain: a double-blind randomized controlled crossover trial.

The analgesic effectiveness and adverse effect incidence of a daily dose of 10 or 20 mg of oral methadone were evaluated in 18 patients with a diverse range of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes, who had all responded poorly to traditional analgesic regimens. Analgesia was seen after each dose of methadone. As compared with placebo, the 20 mg daily dose (given as 10 mg bd) resulted in statistically significant (P = 0.013-0.020) improvements in patient Visual Analogue Scale ratings of maximum pain intensity, average pain intensity and pain relief, recorded at the same time daily. The analgesic effects extended over 48 hours, as shown by statistically significant (P = 0.013-0.020) improvements in all three outcomes on the rest days instituted between each daily dose. Analgesic effects (lowered maximum pain intensity and increased pain relief, on the day of dosing only) were also seen when the lower daily dose of 10 mg methadone (given as 5 mg bd) was used, but these failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.064 and 0.065, respectively). Interpatient analysis showed that the analgesic effects were not restricted to any particular type of neuropathic pain. Patient compliance was high throughout the trial. One patient withdrew during the 10 mg and six during the 20 mg methadone treatment periods. This is the first double-blind randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that methadone has an analgesic effect in neuropathic pain.