Cancer patients' experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore whether cancer patients urgently referred to a cancer patient pathway (CPP) (CPP referred) by a general practitioner report experiences of pre-diagnosis cancer care differently than patients not referred to a CPP (non-CPP referred).

METHODS

Data were collected from cross-sectional questionnaire surveys among cancer patients and their GPs and linked to National registries. Poisson regression was used to generate adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) to compare reported experiences.

RESULTS

The study included 2,256 individuals. CPP referred patients reported more positive overall experiences of the pre-diagnosis phase (p < 0.001). Overall, CPP referred patients were 21% more likely than non-CPP referred patients to report a positive experience after adjustment for case-mix, comorbidity, disposable household income and educational level (PR = 1.21 [95% CI: 1.11-1.30]). The difference decreased to 14% when adjusted for Quality Deviations (PR = 1.14 [95% CI: 1.06-1.23]) and to 11% when adjusted for diagnostic interval (PR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.02-1.20]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that CPP referred cancer patients have better experiences of pre-diagnosis cancer care compared to non-CPP referred patients. A substantial part of the difference could be attributed to shorter diagnostic intervals and/or the absence of quality deviations among CPP patients, which reveals the potential for generally improving cancer patients' experiences by seamless and optimised diagnostic pathways.

Regional variation in surgery for pancreatic cancer in Denmark 2011-2015

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer carries a high risk of both morbidity and mortality. Even so, it remains the best curative treatment option. In Denmark, pancreatic surgery has been extensively centralised since the millennium, but the effect of this centralisation on patient outcome has not been evaluated. This study describes regional variation within pancreatic surgery on a malignant indication, focusing on production volume, length of stay, readmission rates and mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent surgical treatment in Denmark from 2011 to 2015. We obtained data from the Danish National Patient Registry and the National Pathology Data Bank on length of stay, transfers, mortality (both short and long term), age, co-morbidity, and disease stage.

RESULTS

Four hospital units performed a total of 691 surgical procedures (476 pancreaticoduodenectomies) in the study period. Production volume varied considerably across units with two units accounting for nearly 80% of surgery performed. Data revealed variation on rates of transfers and readmissions as well as disease stage and mortality (both short and long term).

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that mortality is linked to production volume as well as disease stage, but the small data quantity impedes rigorous statistical analysis. Further studies on the observed associations are required.

FUNDING

none.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

A nationwide study of the quality of surgical guidelines and written patient information

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) support enhanced post-operative recovery and decrease morbidity. In addition, patient information leaflets (PILs) are associated with enhanced overall outcomes and improved patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the quality of CPGs and PILs in cancer surgery departments undertaking pulmonary lobectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, whipples, colorectal and ovarian surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study within 44 surgical departments in six cancer subspecialties: lung (n = 4), kidney (n = 9), bladder (n = 5), pancreas (n = 4), colorectal (n = 18) and ovarian (n = 4). Local CPGs were assessed according to nine key elements, i.e. discharge criteria and plans for mobilisation, pain management, nutrition, fluid, nausea and vomiting, antibiotics, bowel movements and urinary drainage. The PILs were evaluated using the DISCERN tool.

RESULTS

All departments had CPGs and PILs. Overall, 43% of the departments incorporated all nine key elements in the CPGs. Yet, a third of the CPGs lacked well-defined discharge criteria, and half of the PILs were of poor/very poor quality (48%); the remainder were fair (43%) or good (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

CPGs and PILs are highly available in Danish departments that perform cancer surgery. However, this study revealed that local CPGs lacked discharge criteria, and the majority of the PILs were considered of poor quality, suggesting that post-operative management after cancer surgery is of varying quality.

FUNDING

not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

Attention to cancer patients' safety after primary treatment is needed

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge about patient safety issues after primary treatment of cancer is sparse.

METHODS

The present article is a retrospective analysis of adverse events (AEs) after primary cancer treatment to characterise the types of AEs and their consequences. A total of 724 AEs reported from 2010 to 2013 were identified via the Danish Patient Safety Database. The International Classification for Patient Safety was used to characterise event types. Consequences were characterised as either psychical harm or delay. We focused on AEs in care transitions.

RESULTS

Common event types were administrative processes (58%), communication and documentation (56%), clinical processes (42%) and medication (27%). 46% of AEs led to physical harm. 4% resulted in severe physical harm or death. 18% resulted in delay in diagnosis of relapse or new cancer, treatment or referral. 50% of all AEs were related to care transitions. The AEs in care transitions carry great potential for prevention as they often relate to inadequate administrative practices, poor communication and documentation, or to unclear transferal of responsibility for the patient.

CONCLUSION

Attention to patient safety after primary cancer treatment is required. The identification of a substantial number of AEs in care transitions stresses a need for increased continuity and clear transfer of responsibility in cancer care after primary treatment. To support learning from AEs, the AE reports should provide more details on the contextual factors.

Involvement of patients with cancer in patient safety: a qualitative study of current practices, potentials and barriers

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement in patient safety is widely advocated but knowledge regarding implementation of the concept in clinical practice is sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate existing practices for patient involvement in patient safety, and opportunities and barriers for further involvement.

DESIGN

A qualitative study of patient safety involvement practices in patient trajectories for prostate, uterine and colorectal cancer in Denmark. Observations from four hospital wards and interviews with 25 patients with cancer, 11 hospital doctors, 10 nurses, four general practitioners and two private practicing gynaecologists were conducted using ethnographic methodology.

FINDINGS

Patient safety was not a topic of attention for patients or dominant in communication between patients and healthcare professionals. The understanding of patient safety in clinical practice is almost exclusively linked to disease management. Involvement of patients is not systematic, but healthcare professionals and patients express willingness to engage. Invitation and encouragement of patients to become involved could be further systematised and developed. Barriers include limited knowledge of patient safety, of specific patient safety involvement techniques and concern regarding potential negative impact on doctor-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Involvement of patients in patient safety must take into account that despite stated openness to the idea of involvement, patients and health professionals may not in practice show immediate concern. Lack of systematic involvement can also be attributed to limited knowledge about how to implement involvement beyond the focus of self-monitoring and compliance and a concern about the consequences of patient involvement for treatment outcomes. To realise the potential of patients' and health professionals' shared openness towards involvement, there is a need for more active facilitation and concrete guidance on how involvement can be practiced by both parties.

[Patient involvement in patient safety is necessary, but the effect is undocumented]

Patient involvement has been on the patient safety agenda for years. Several initiatives have been launched, but in spite of support from health-care professionals, patients and administrators the concept is not yet integrated in every day clinical practice. The vision is to create partnerships for the purpose of preventing patients from harm due to their contact to health care. The literature offers good ideas but is also characterized by lack of methodological rigor. A change of values and habits, a supportive infrastructure and further research is needed to reach the goal.

Uncertain added value of Global Trigger Tool for monitoring of patient safety in cancer care

INTRODUCTION

Monitoring patient safety is a challenging task. The lack of a golden standard has contributed to the recommendation and introduction of several methods. In 2000 the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) was established to monitor the clinical management of lung cancer. In 2008 the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was recommended in Denmark as a tool for the monitoring of patient safety. Ideally, the recommendation of a new tool should be preceded by a critical assessment of its added value.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data on complications related to lung cancer surgery from the Department of Cardiothoragic Surgery at Odense University Hospital were collected using the DLCR and the GTT in 2008. The capacity of these two methods to identify complications is compared and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 complications were registered in the DLCR, while 58 complications were registered using the GTT. The two methods were equally good at identifying complications, but the DLCR seemed to be borderline significantly better at detecting arrhythmia, while the GTT was significantly better at detecting "other events".

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the adverse events identified with the GTT were complications which were also registered by type in the DLCR. The two methods were almost equally good at identifying specific types of complications, but the GTT identified more "other events". The majority of these events were well-known to clinicians. The comparison illustrates why the implementation of new methods should be preceded by critical assessment. In this case, it is crucial to assess whether the current method should be modified by the addition of more patient safety indicators rather than by introducing a new method that partly duplicates existing data.

[Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records]

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade a number of studies on the incidence and preventability of adverse events in the health care have been published in the US, Australia and the UK. So far no similar study has been performed in Denmark. In order to determine whether foreign findings could be generalised to Danish health care, a pilot study on adverse events was carried out in Danish acute care hospitals.

METHOD

Chart reviews were carried out on 1.097 acute care hospital admissions, sampled from the central Danish National Patient Register. The sample was truly proportional with no over-sampling of high-risks groups. Chart reviews was done in 17 different acute care hospitals, reviewing between 20 and 204 admissions per hospital. Adverse events was identified using a three-step procedure: 1) Nurse screening by 18 criteria identifying high-risk groups. 2) Independent reviews by pairs of consultants. 3) In case of disagreement between second step consultants, two additional independent reviews was performed by new consultants (internist and surgeon) followed by conference. All chart reviews were performed independent of medical specialty. All nurses and doctors were senior and experienced clinicians.

RESULTS

In 114 admissions 176 Adverse Events (AEs) were identified. The prevalence of admissions with adverse events were 9.0% of all admissions. Preventability of adverse events was found in 46 of admissions (40.4% of AEs). The adverse events caused on average a 7.0 days prolonged hospital stay. Most adverse events resulted in minor, transient disabilities. Permanent disability or death in relation to adverse event were recorded in 30 admissions.

DISCUSSION

The findings from the Danish Adverse Event Study are similar to the results found in Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. It is therefore recommended that further Danish research, is directed towards high-risk groups focussing on narratives and intervention and towards research in primary health care.

[Reporting of incidents. Experiences with medical registration systems]

Current incident reporting systems in Denmark are primarily focused on litigation. Epidemiological studies in the United States have shown that only 2.7% of adverse events that qualify for litigation are identified in such systems. Existing Danish reporting on adverse effects and complications is not exhaustive and often focused on new medicine/technologies and only a few specialties. Published findings on the quality of reporting systems are mostly based on local systems, certain specialties, procedures, or products. Observational biases are found in both mandatory and voluntary reporting systems. Current documentation does not support theories of higher coverage in mandatory reporting systems than in voluntary systems. Reporting systems run by authorities have shown significantly lower coverage than those run by medical professions. Anonymous and confidential systems have higher coverage than open systems. Fast, relevant, and constructive feedback to the informants increases the quantity and quality of reports. Risk managers and locally based systems could increase reporting through better possibilities for direct feedback, although local systems have difficulty in initiating major prophylactic actions. Foreign epidemiological studies have shown an adverse events incidence of 3-13%. However, more than half of the adverse events occur at such a low frequency that it is unlikely that isolated hospital systems can produce sufficient information for prophylactic action.