CASNET2: evaluation of an electronic safety netting cancer toolkit for the primary care electronic health record: protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge RCT

Electronic safety-netting tool features considered important by UK general practice staff: an interview and Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

The potential of the electronic health record to support safety netting has been recognised and a number of electronic safety-netting (E-SN) tools developed.

AIM

To establish the most important features of E-SN tools.

DESIGN & SETTING

User-experience interviews followed by a Delphi study in a primary care setting in the UK.

METHOD

The user-experience interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff who had trialled the EMIS E-SN toolkit for suspected cancer. An electronic modified Delphi approach was used, with primary care staff involved in safety netting in any capacity, to measure consensus on tool features.

RESULTS

Thirteen user-experience interviews were carried out and features of E-SN tools seen as important formed the majority of the features included in the Delphi study. Three rounds of Delphi survey were administered. Sixteen responders (64%) completed all three rounds, and 28 out of 44 (64%) features reached consensus. Primary care staff preferred tools that were general in scope.

CONCLUSION

Primary care staff indicated that tools that were not specific to cancer or any other disease, and had features that promoted their flexible, efficient, and integrated use, were important. However, when the important features were discussed with the patient and public involvement (PPI) group, they expressed disappointment that features they believed would make E-SN tools robust and provide a safety net that is difficult to fall through did not reach consensus. The successful adoption of E-SN tools will rely on an evidence base of their effectiveness. Efforts should be made to assess the impact of these tools on patient outcomes.

Using an electronic safety netting tool designed to improve safety with respect to cancer referral in primary care: a qualitative service evaluation using rapid appraisal methods

BACKGROUND

This evaluation assesses the impact of an electronic safety netting software (E-SN) package, C the Signs, in primary care services across five boroughs in North East London (NEL).

AIM

This study evaluates the use of E-SN software in primary care, examining its benefits and barriers, safety implications, and overall impact on individual and practice usage.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study is based on semi-structured interviews with 21 clinical and non-clinical members of staff from all primary care services using the software in NEL.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather data on individual use of the software, safety implications and practice use of features such as the monitoring dashboard. Data were analysed using a rapid qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

Two approaches to E-SN software adoption were reported: whole practice adoption and self-directed use. Practices benefitted from shared responsibility for safety netting and using software to track patients' progress in secondary care. Adoption was affected by information technology and administrative resources. Decision-support tools were used infrequently due to a lack of appreciation for their benefits. Selective adoption of different E-SN functions restricted its potential impact on early diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The use of E-SN software in primary care services in NEL varied among participants. While some found it to be beneficial, others were sceptical of its impact on clinical decision-making. Nonetheless, the software was found to be effective in managing referral processes and tracking patients' progress in other points of care.

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients.

AIM

To explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Seventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff.

METHOD

Staff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

The first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

The post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

RESULTS

95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

Harnessing the electronic health care record to optimise patient safety in primary care: a framework for evaluating “electronic safety netting” tools (Preprint)

The management of diagnostic uncertainty is part of every primary care physician’s role. e–Safety-netting tools help health care professionals to manage diagnostic uncertainty. Using software in addition to verbal or paper based safety-netting methods could make diagnostic delays and errors less likely. There are an increasing number of software products that have been identified as e–safety-netting tools, particularly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. e–Safety-netting tools can have a variety of functions, such as sending clinician alerts, facilitating administrative tasking, providing decision support, and sending reminder text messages to patients. However, these tools have not been evaluated by using robust research designs for patient safety interventions. We present an emergent framework of criteria for effective e–safety-netting tools that can be used to support the development of software. The framework is based on validated frameworks for electronic health record development and patient safety. There are currently no tools available that meet all of the criteria in the framework. We hope that the framework will stimulate clinical and public conversations about e–safety-netting tools. In the future, a validated framework would drive audits and improvements. We outline key areas for future research both in primary care and within integrated care systems.

Factors affecting the documentation of spoken safety-netting advice in routine GP consultations: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported how often safety-netting is documented in medical records, but it is not known how this compares with what is verbalised and what factors might influence the consistency of documentation.

AIM

To compare spoken and documented safety-netting advice and to explore factors associated with documentation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study, using an existing GP consultations archive.

METHOD

Observational coding involving classifying and quantifying medical record entries and comparison with spoken safety-netting advice in 295 video-/audio-recorded consultations. Associations were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of consultations (192/295) contained spoken safety-netting advice that applied to less than half of the problems assessed (242/516). Only one-third of consultations (94/295) had documented safety-netting advice, which covered 20.3% of problems (105/516). The practice of GPs varied widely, from those that did not document their safety-netting advice to those that nearly always did so (86.7%). GPs were more likely to document their safety-netting advice for new problems (P = 0.030), when only a single problem was discussed in a consultation (P = 0.040), and when they gave specific rather than generic safety-netting advice (P = 0.007). In consultations where multiple problems were assessed (n = 139), the frequency of spoken and documented safety-netting advice decreased the later a problem was assessed.

CONCLUSION

GPs frequently do not document the safety-netting advice they have given to patients, which may have medicolegal implications in the event of an untoward incident. GPs should consider how safely they can assess and document more than one problem in a single consultation and this risk should be shared with patients to help manage expectations.