Brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A survey of UK provision of care and support

Background and purpose: Gynaecological brachytherapy can cause anxiety, distress and discomfort. It is not known how variation in delivery impacts women's experiences. To inform future research an online survey was carried out to identify variations in brachytherapy and support available to women receiving treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Materials and methods: An online survey was sent to 44 UK brachytherapy centres using the Qualtrics® survey platform. It included questions about brachytherapy scheduling, inpatient/day case treatment, anaesthetic/analgesia, non-pharmacological support and health professionals’ opinions regarding holistic care. A mixture of closed questions with pre-specified options and open questions were employed. Descriptive statistics were generated to identify variance in UK practice. Free text responses were analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: Responses were received from 39/43 eligible centres (91% response rate). Brachytherapy was predominantly given on an inpatient basis at 65% and day case at 35% of centres. Eleven scheduling regimes were reported with typical duration of brachytherapy ranging from three to 52 h. The main categories identified in response to what worked well were: ‘consistency of staff’; ‘good information provision’ and ‘experienced/skilled/senior staff’. The main categories identified as needing improvement were: ‘training of different staff groups’ and ‘follow up and support’ with many suggestions for service improvements. Conclusion: The survey provided a comprehensive overview of brachytherapy services for LACC demonstrating wide variability in scheduling regimes, duration of treatment and holistic care. The findings support the need to explore women's experiences with a range of treatment regimes and anaesthesia and analgesia techniques to inform improvements to future clinical care

Deprescribing: A Prime Opportunity to Optimize Care of Cancer Patients

Patients with incurable cancers have an increasing number of comorbidities, which can lead to polypharmacy and its associated adverse events (drug-to-drug interaction, prescription of a potentially inappropriate medication, adverse drug event). Deprescribing is a patient-centered process aimed at optimizing patient outcomes by discontinuing medication(s) deemed no longer necessary or potentially inappropriate. Improved patient quality of life, risk reduction of side effects or worse clinical outcomes, and a decrease in healthcare costs are well-documented benefits of deprescribing. Deprescribing and advance care planning both require consideration of patients’ values, preferences, and care goals. Here, we provide an overview of comorbidities and associated polypharmacy risks in cancer patients, as well as useful tools and resources for deprescribing in daily practice, and we shed light on how deprescribing can facilitate advance care planning discussions with patients who have advanced cancer or a limited life expectancy

A randomised crossover comparison of two endotracheal tube introducers: the FROVA and the Flexible Tip Bougie for GlideScope intubation of a difficult airway manikin by infrequent intubators

BACKGROUND: This unblinded randomised crossover study compares two endotracheal tube introducers (ETIs): the FROVA and the "Flexible Tip Bougie" (FTB), in an airway manikin mimicking difficult intubation with a percentage of glottic opening view of 30%. Participants were Emergency Medicine and Anaesthesia trainees with recent experience of less than twenty patient intubations. The primary outcome was time to intubation, further divided into time taken to pass the ETI and time to railroad the endotracheal tube (ETT) over the ETI. The secondary outcome was the difficulty of intubation. RESULTS: The median total time to ETT placement was significantly shorter with the FTB (37.5 s) compared with the FROVA ETI (63.0 s), P = 0.0006. The median difficulty reported (scores 0-10 with 0 being no difficulty) with the FTB was 2 compared with 5 for the FROVA, P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The FTB enabled significantly faster and easier placement of the endotracheal tube compared with the FROVA in inexperienced hands intubating a difficult intubation manikin