Bowel cancer screening in England: a qualitative study of GPs' attitudes and information needs

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme is to be introduced in England during 2006. General Practitioners are a potentially important point of contact for participants throughout the screening process. The aims of the study were to examine GPs' attitudes and information needs with regard to bowel cancer screening, with a view to developing an information pack for primary care teams that will be circulated prior to the introduction of the programme. METHODS: 32 GPs participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. 18 of these had participated in the English Bowel Screening Pilot, and 14 had not. Interviews covered attitudes towards the introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, expected or actual increases in workload, confidence in promoting informed choice, and preferences for receiving information about the programme. RESULTS: GPs in the study were generally positive about the introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. A number of concerns were identified by GPs who had not taken part in the pilot programme, particularly relating to patient welfare, patient participation, and increased workload. GPs who had taken part in the pilot reported holding similar concerns prior to their involvement. However, in many cases these concerns were not confirmed through GPs experiences with the pilot. A number of specific information needs were identified by GPs to enable them to provide a supportive role to participants in the programme. CONCLUSION: The study has found considerable GP support for the introduction of the new Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Nonetheless, GPs hold some significant reservations regarding the programme. It is important that the information needs of GPs and other members of the primary care team are addressed prior to the roll-out of the programme so they are equipped to promote informed choice and provide support to patients who consult them with queries regarding screening

Trends in thrombolytic use for ischemic stroke in the United States

BACKGROUND: Although recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) improves outcomes from ischemic stroke, prior studies have found low rates of administration. Recent guidelines and regulatory agencies have advocated for increased tPA administration in appropriate patients, but it is unclear how many patients actually receive tPA. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether national rates of tPA use for ischemic stroke have increased over time. METHODS: We identified all patients with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke from years 2001 to 2006 in the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), a nationally representative sample of inpatient hospitalizations, and searched for procedure codes for intravenous thrombolytic administration. Clinical and demographic factors were obtained from the survey and multivariable logistic regression used to identify independent predictors associated with thrombolytic use. RESULTS: Among the 22,842 patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke, tPA administration rates increased from 0.87% in 2001 to 2.40% in 2006 ( P < 0.001 for trend). Older patients were less likely to receive tPA (adjusted odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.4 [0.3-0.6] for patients ≥80 years vs. <60 years), as were African American patients (0.4 [0.3-0.7]). Larger hospitals were more likely to administer tPA (3.3 [2.0-5.6] in hospitals with at least 300 beds compared to those with 6-99 beds). CONCLUSIONS: Although tPA administration for ischemic stroke has increased nationally in recent years, the overall rate of use remains very low. Larger hospitals were more likely to administer tPA. Further efforts to improve appropriate administration of tPA should be encouraged, particularly as the acceptable time-window for using tPA widens. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78061/1/689_ftp.pd

User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a serious and growing health problem in Canada. Colonoscopy is used for screening and diagnosis of symptomatic or high CRC risk individuals. Although a number of countries are now implementing quality colonoscopy services, knowledge synthesis of barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare professionals and patients during implementation has not been carried out. In addition, the perspectives of various stakeholders towards the implementation of quality colonoscopy services and the need of an efficient organisation of such services have been reported in the literature but have not been synthesised yet. The present study aims to produce a comprehensive synthesis of actual knowledge on the barriers and facilitators perceived by all stakeholders to the implementation of quality colonoscopy services in Canada.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>First, we will conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and other published documentation on the barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services. Standardised literature searches and data extraction methods will be used. The quality of the studies and their relevance to informing decisions on colonoscopy services implementation will be assessed. For each group of users identified, barriers and facilitators will be categorised and compiled using narrative synthesis and meta-analytical techniques. The principle factors identified for each group of users will then be validated for its applicability to various Canadian contexts using the Delphi study method. Following this study, a set of strategies will be identified to inform decision makers involved in the implementation of quality colonoscopy services across Canadian jurisdictions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will be the first to systematically summarise the barriers and facilitators to implementation of quality colonoscopy services perceived by different groups and to consider the local contexts in order to ensure the applicability of this knowledge to the particular realities of various Canadian jurisdictions. Linkages with strategic partners and decision makers in the realisation of this project will favour the utilisation of its results to support strategies for implementing quality colonoscopy services and CRC screening programs in the Canadian health system.</p

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trial

Background: Bowel cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality. There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), which may lead to inequalities in cancer outcomes. Objective: To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP’s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group. Design: Workstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘gist’ information, (2) a ‘narrative’ leaflet, (3) ‘general practice endorsement’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘enhanced reminder’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Methods: Interventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘usual care’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘gist’ leaflet (n = 163,525), (2) ‘narrative’ leaflet (n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter (n = 265,434) and (4) ER (n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual’s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘definitive’ test result of either ‘normal’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘abnormal’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome. Results: The gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; all p-values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient (p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10; p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs (p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide. Limitations: In line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect. Conclusions: Enhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results highlight the challenge of achieving equitable delivery of the screening offer when all communication is written; the format is universal and informed decision-making mandates extensive medical information. Future work: Socioculturally tailored research to promote communication about screening with family and friends should be developed and evaluated. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74121020. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) pilot point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use.

&lt;p&gt;A standardised methodology for a combined point prevalence survey (PPS) on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control was piloted across Europe. Variables were collected at national, hospital and patient level in 66 hospitals from 23 countries. A patient-based and a unit-based protocol were available. Feasibility was assessed via national and hospital questionnaires. Of 19,888 surveyed patients, 7.1% had an HAI and 34.6% were receiving at least one antimicrobial agent. Prevalence results were highest in intensive care units, with 28.1% patients with HAI, and 61.4% patients with antimicrobial use. Pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract infections (2.0% of patients; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8–2.2%) represented the most common type (25.7%) of HAI. Surgical prophylaxis was the indication for 17.3% of used antimicrobials and exceeded one day in 60.7% of cases. Risk factors in the patient-based protocol were provided for 98% or more of the included patients and all were independently associated with both presence of HAI and receiving an antimicrobial agent. The patient-based protocol required more work than the unit-based protocol, but allowed collecting detailed data and analysis of risk factors for HAI and antimicrobial use.&lt;/p&gt;</p

Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service has recently begun the introduction of a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), offering biennial screening to men and women aged 60-69 years. This study aimed to explore public perceptions regarding the communication of information designed to facilitate informed choice in relation to this new screening programme.METHODS: Fourteen single sex focus groups were conducted in England with 86 individuals aged 60-69 years. Focus groups were conducted either with individuals who had participated in the pilot phase of the BCSP, or with members of the public living outside the pilot areas. RESULTS: The majority of participants expressed positive attitudes towards bowel cancer screening, identifying items highlighting the benefits of the programme as important for others to know. Whilst some believed it was appropriate for information regarding the potentially negative aspects of the programme to be communicated at the outset, others expressed concerns about the generation of anxiety and potential for decreased participation. A number of participants questioned the concept of informed choice, arguing that once in place, a screening programme should be vigorously promoted. CONCLUSIONS: There is some variation in the type of information favoured by those eligible for bowel cancer screening. This may present challenges for the provision of information aiming to facilitate informed choice in the BCSP. Flexible approaches to information provision that recognize the perceptions of patients may be required

Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service has recently begun the introduction of a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), offering biennial screening to men and women aged 60-69 years. This study aimed to explore public perceptions regarding the communication of information designed to facilitate informed choice in relation to this new screening programme.METHODS: Fourteen single sex focus groups were conducted in England with 86 individuals aged 60-69 years. Focus groups were conducted either with individuals who had participated in the pilot phase of the BCSP, or with members of the public living outside the pilot areas. RESULTS: The majority of participants expressed positive attitudes towards bowel cancer screening, identifying items highlighting the benefits of the programme as important for others to know. Whilst some believed it was appropriate for information regarding the potentially negative aspects of the programme to be communicated at the outset, others expressed concerns about the generation of anxiety and potential for decreased participation. A number of participants questioned the concept of informed choice, arguing that once in place, a screening programme should be vigorously promoted. CONCLUSIONS: There is some variation in the type of information favoured by those eligible for bowel cancer screening. This may present challenges for the provision of information aiming to facilitate informed choice in the BCSP. Flexible approaches to information provision that recognize the perceptions of patients may be required