Is seeing a specialist nurse associated with positive experiences of care? The role and value of specialist nurses in prostate cancer care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Specialist nurses may play an important role in helping to improve the experiences of patients with prostate cancer, however there is concern that the specialist nurse role is under threat in the UK due to financial pressures in the NHS. This study explored the role and value of specialist nurses in prostate cancer care via a survey and patient interviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper reports findings from two studies. A survey of patients from three hospitals across the UK (289/481, 60%), investigated whether patients who saw a specialist nurse had different experiences of information provision and involvement in decision-making, to those who did not. Qualitative interviews were also carried out with 35 men recently tested or treated for prostate cancer, recruited from two hospitals in the UK. Interviews explored patients' views on the role and value of the specialist nurse.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Survey findings indicated that patients who saw a specialist nurse had more positive experiences of receiving written information about tests and treatment, and about sources of advice and support, and were more likely to say they made the treatment decision themselves. In interviews, patients described specialist nurse input in their care in terms of providing information and support immediately post-diagnosis, as well as being involved in ongoing care. Two key aspects of the specialist nurse role were seen as unique: their availability to the patient, and their ability to liaise between the patient and the medical system.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study indicates the unique role that specialist nurses play in the experience of patients with prostate cancer, and highlights the importance of maintaining specialist nurse roles in prostate cancer care.</p

The impact of patient participation direct enhanced service on patient reference groups in primary care: a qualitative study.

NHS policy documents continue to make a wide-ranging commitment to patient involvement. The Patient Participation Direct Enhanced Service (PP-DES), launched in 2011, aimed to ensure patients are involved in decisions about the range and quality of services provided and commissioned by their practice through patient reference groups (PRGs). The aim of this exploratory study is to review the impact of the PP-DES (2011-13) on a sample of PRGs and assess how far it has facilitated their involvement in decisions about the services of their general practices.The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR)

Cluster randomised trial of a tailored intervention to improve the management of overweight and obesity in primary care in England. Implement Sci.

Abstract Background: Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. Methods: A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obese patients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. Results: There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15. 08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42. 71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources

Cluster randomised trial of a tailored intervention to improve the management of overweight and obesity in primary care in England

Background: Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. Methods: A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obese patients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. Results: There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15. 08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42.71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources. Conclusions: The tailored intervention did not improve the implementation of the guidelines on obesity, despite systematic approaches to the identification of the determinants of practice. The methods of tailoring require further development to ensure that interventions target those determinants that most influence implementation

The Prostate Care Questionnaire for Carers (PCQ-C): reliability, validity and acceptability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patient experience is commonly monitored in evaluating and improving health care, but the experience of carers (partners/relatives/friends) is rarely monitored even though the role of carers can often be substantial. For carers to fulfil their role it is necessary to address their needs. This paper describes an evaluation of the reliability, validity and acceptability of the PCQ-C, a newly developed instrument designed to measure the experiences of carers of men with prostate cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The reliability, acceptability and validity of the PCQ-C were tested through a postal survey and interviews with carers. The PCQ-C was posted to 1087 prostate cancer patients and patients were asked to pass the questionnaire on to their carer. Non-responders received one reminder. To assess test-retest reliability, 210 carers who had responded to the questionnaire were resent it a second time three weeks later. A subsample of nine carers from patients attending one hospital took part in qualitative interviews to assess validity and acceptability of the PCQ-C. Acceptability to service providers was evaluated based on four hospitals' experiences of running a survey using the PCQ-C.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 514 carers (47.3%), and the majority of questions showed less than 10% missing data. Across the sections of the questionnaire internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.80 to 0.89), and test-retest stability showed moderate to high stability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.52 to 0.83). Interviews of carers indicated that the PCQ-C was valid and acceptable. Feedback from hospitals indicated that they found the questionnaire useful, and highlighted important considerations for its future use as part of quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The PCQ-C has been found to be acceptable to carers and service providers having been used successfully in hospitals in England. It is ready for use to measure the aspects of care that need to be addressed to improve the quality of prostate cancer care, and for research.</p

The Prostate Care Questionnaire for Patients (PCQ-P): Reliability, validity and acceptability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In England, prostate cancer patients report worse experience of care than patients with other cancers. However, no standard measure of patient experience of prostate cancer care is currently available. This paper describes an evaluation of the reliability, validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P, a newly developed instrument designed to measure patient experience of prostate cancer care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The reliability, acceptability and validity of the PCQ-P were tested through a postal survey and interviews with patients. The PCQ-P was posted to 1087 prostate cancer patients varying in age, occupation, and overall health status, sampled from five hospitals in England. Nonresponders received one reminder. To assess criterion validity, 935 patients were also sent sections of the National Centre for Social Research Shortened Questionnaire; and to assess test-retest reliability, 296 patients who responded to the questionnaire were resent it a second time three weeks later. A subsample of 20 prostate cancer patients from one hospital took part in qualitative interviews to assess validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P. Acceptability to service providers was evaluated based on four hospitals' experiences of running a survey using the PCQ-P.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 865 patients (69.2%). Missing data was low across the sections, with the proportion of patients completing less than 50% of each section ranging from 4.5% to 6.9%. Across the sections of the questionnaire, internal consistency was moderate to high (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.63 to 0.80), and test-retest stability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.57 to 0.73). Findings on criterion validity were significant. Patient interviews indicated that the PCQ-P had high face validity and acceptability. Feedback from hospitals indicated that they found the questionnaire useful, and highlighted important considerations for its future use as part of quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The PCQ-P has been found to be acceptable to patients and service providers, and is ready for use for the measurement of patient experience in routine practice, service improvement programmes, and research.</p

Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

BACKGROUND: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. RESULTS: Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. DISCUSSION: By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts

Mutational signatures in esophageal adenocarcinoma define etiologically distinct subgroups with therapeutic relevance.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a poor outcome, and targeted therapy trials have thus far been disappointing owing to a lack of robust stratification methods. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) analysis of 129 cases demonstrated that this is a heterogeneous cancer dominated by copy number alterations with frequent large-scale rearrangements. Co-amplification of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) and/or downstream mitogenic activation is almost ubiquitous; thus tailored combination RTK inhibitor (RTKi) therapy might be required, as we demonstrate in vitro. However, mutational signatures showed three distinct molecular subtypes with potential therapeutic relevance, which we verified in an independent cohort (n = 87): (i) enrichment for BRCA signature with prevalent defects in the homologous recombination pathway; (ii) dominant T>G mutational pattern associated with a high mutational load and neoantigen burden; and (iii) C>A/T mutational pattern with evidence of an aging imprint. These subtypes could be ascertained using a clinically applicable sequencing strategy (low coverage) as a basis for therapy selection.Whole-genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma samples was performed as part of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) through the oEsophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification (OCCAMS) Consortium and was funded by Cancer Research UK. We thank the ICGC members for their input on verification standards as part of the benchmarking exercise. We thank the Human Research Tissue Bank, which is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital and UCL. Also the University Hospital of Southampton Trust and the Southampton, Birmingham, Edinburgh and UCL Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres and the QEHB charities. This study was partly funded by a project grant from Cancer Research UK. R.C.F. is funded by an NIHR Professorship and receives core funding from the Medical Research Council and infrastructure support from the Biomedical Research Centre and the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre. We acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK (C14303/A17197) and Hutchison Whampoa Limited. We would like to thank Dr. Peter Van Loo for providing the NGS version of ASCAT for copy number calling. We are grateful to all the patients who provided written consent for participation in this study and the staff at all participating centres. Some of the work was undertaken at UCLH/UCL who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. The work at UCLH/UCL was also supported by the CRUK UCL Early Cancer Medicine Centre.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.365