Dataset Information

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS:This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n?=?186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS:We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS:This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

SUBMITTER: Melnychuk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6389051 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

Melnychuk Mariya M Vindrola-Padros Cecilia C Aitchison Michael M Clarke Caroline S CS Fulop Naomi J NJ Levermore Claire C Maddineni Satish B SB Moore Caroline M CM Mughal Muntzer M MM Perry Catherine C Pritchard-Jones Kathy K Ramsay Angus I G AIG Shackley David D Vickers Jonathan J Morris Stephen S

BMC cancer 20180227 1

<h4>Background</h4>The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of ...[more]

PMID: 29486730

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study based on data from 5?years (2008-2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:20?103 adults aged 17-65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18?533). OUTCOME MEASURE:Prevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ?30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population. RESULTS:Obesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95%?CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%,?95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%,?95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46,?95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94,?95% CI 0.74 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS:High obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

Project description:BackgroundWe aim to describe the health-related quality of life of informal carers and their experiences of primary care.MethodsResponses from the 2011-12 English General Practice Patient Survey, including 195,364 informal carers, were analysed using mixed effect logistic regressions controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation to describe carer health-related quality of life (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression, measured using EQ-5D) and primary care experience (access, continuity and communication).ResultsInformal carers reported poorer health-related quality of life than non-carers of similar age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation. Increasing caring commitment was associated with worse EQ-5D scores, with carers of 50+ hours a week scoring 0.05 points lower than non-carers (95 % CI 0.05 to 0.04), equivalent to 18 fewer days of full health annually. Considering each domain of EQ-5D separately, carers of 50+ hours/week were more likely to report pain OR = 1.53 (1.50-1.57), p < 0.0001, and anxiety/depression OR = 1.69 (1.66-1.73), p < 0.0001, than non-carers. Younger carers scored lower on EQ-5D than non-carer peers but the converse was true among over-85s. In the most deprived areas carers reported the equivalent of 37 fewer days of full health annually than carers in the most affluent areas. On average, carers reported poorer patient experiences in all areas of primary care than non-carers (odds ratios 0.84-0.97), with this difference being most marked in the domain of access.ConclusionsInformal carers experience a double disadvantage of poorer health-related quality of life and poorer patient experience in primary care. We find no evidence for health benefits of caregiving. We recommend physicians identify and treat carer health problems, including pain and anxiety/depression, particularly among young, deprived and high time-commitment carers. Improving patient experience for carers, including access to primary care, should be a priority.

Project description:IntroductionEven though people of the world were eagerly waiting for the hope of vaccine development, vaccine hesitancy is becoming the top concern in both developed and developing countries. However, there is no adequate evidence regarding the attitude and perception of health professionals towards the COVID 19 vaccine in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. The aim of this study was to assess health professionals' attitudes and perceptions towards COVID 19 vaccine in Western Ethiopia.MethodsAn institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted among health care workers found in Nekemte town from April 14-21, 2021. A total of 439 health professionals present on duty during the study period was included in the study. The data were collected by using self-administered questionnaire. Epidata version 3.2 was used for data entry, and STATA version 14 was used for data analysis. The binary logistic regression model was employed to determine factors associated with the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals was computed and statistical significance was declared at a 5% level (p-value < 0.05).ResultA total of 431 health professionals participated in the study yielding a response rate of 98.1%. The results indicated that 51.28% (95%CI: 45.12%, 57.34%) of health professionals had a favorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. Having good knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.22, 0.64, P-value <0.001) was negatively associated with unfavorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine, whereas age less than 30 years (AOR = 2.14, 95%CI:1.25,3.67, P-value <0.001), working in a private clinic (AOR = 7.77, 95% CI: 2.19, 27.58, P-value <0.001) and health center (AOR = 2.45, 95%CI: 1.01, 5.92, P-value = 0.045) were positively associated with unfavorable attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine.Conclusion and recommendationIn general, the attitude and perception of health care professionals toward the COVID-19 vaccine in the study area were unsatisfactory. Knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, age of health care workers, and place of work are the factors which affects attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, we recommend the media outlets and concerned bodies to work to develop trust among the public by disseminating accurate and consistent information about the vaccine.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of reorganisation of neonatal specialist care services in England after a UK Department of Health report in 2003.DesignA population-wide observational comparison of outcomes over two epochs, before and after the establishment of managed clinical neonatal networks.SettingEpoch one: 294 maternity and neonatal units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2000, as reported by the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Sudden Deaths in Infancy Project 27/28. Epoch two: 146 neonatal units in England contributing data to the National Neonatal Research Database at the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit, 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010.ParticipantsBabies born at a gestational age of 27(+0)-28(+6) (weeks+days): 3522 live births in epoch one; 2919 babies admitted to a neonatal unit within 28 days of birth in epoch two.InterventionThe national reorganisation of neonatal services into managed clinical networks.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of babies born at hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (≥ 2000 neonatal intensive care days annually), having an acute transfer (within the first 24 hours after birth) and/or a late transfer (between 24 hours and 28 days after birth) to another hospital, assessed by change in distribution of transfer category ("none," "acute," "late"), and babies from multiple births separated by transfer. For acute transfers in epoch two, the level of specialist neonatal care provided at the destination hospital (British Association of Perinatal Medicine criteria).ResultsAfter reorganisation, there were increases in the proportions of babies born at 27-28 weeks' gestation in hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (18% (631/3495) v 49% (1325/2724); odds ratio 4.30, 95% confidence interval 3.83 to 4.82; P<0.001) and in acute and late postnatal transfers (7% (235) v 12% (360) and 18% (579) v 22% (640), respectively; P<0.001). There was no significant change in the proportion of babies from multiple births separated by transfer (33% (39) v 29% (38); 0.86, 0.50 to 1.46; P=0.57). In epoch two, 32% of acute transfers were to a neonatal unit providing either an equivalent (n=87) or lower (n=26) level of specialist care.ConclusionsThere is evidence of some improvement in the delivery of neonatal specialist care after reorganisation. The increase in acute transfers in epoch two, in conjunction with the high proportion transferred to a neonatal unit providing an equivalent or lower level of specialist care, and the continued separation of babies from multiple births, are indicative of poor coordination between maternity and neonatal services to facilitate in utero transfer before delivery, and continuing inadequacies in capacity of intensive care cots. Historical data representing epoch one are available only in aggregate form, preventing examination of temporal trends or confounding factors. This limits the extent to which differences between epochs can be attributed to reorganisation and highlights the importance of routine, prospective data collection for evaluation of future health service reorganisations.

Project description:ObjectivesIn order to develop a better understanding of students' access to mental health services, we explored the experiences of health care professionals interacting with university students with mental health problems.MethodsWe interviewed 23 professionals working across university advice and counselling services, NHS general practice, crisis, and psychological services in North and East London between June 2022 and January 2023. Our approach drew on reflexive thematic analysis and the principles of abductive analysis. The notion of candidacy - that is, how different needs are deemed deserving of health service attention - was particularly helpful to our understanding of the ongoing phenomenon of interest in the data.ResultsEach student's access to mental health support was highly contingent on the student's dynamic social context and the pressures and organisation of the local health system. Professionals described how different students viewed different needs as deserving of health service attention. Which students reached the professional's service depended on the resources and relationships a student could draw upon, and the service's relative permeability. Once there, what action professionals took was strongly influenced by the professional's service expertise, resource constraints, the relationships the professional's service had with other organisations, the students' wishes, and whether students regarded treatment offers as acceptable.ConclusionsCandidacy offers a useful lens to view university students' access to mental health support. Access appears to be an increasingly intricate task for students, given the fragmented service landscape, surging demand for mental health care and challenges of emerging adulthood. Our findings suggest that policy goals to increase use of mental health services are unlikely to improve outcomes for students without policy makers and health systems giving holistic consideration of inter-service relationships and available resources.

Project description:BackgroundSocial integration, shared decision-making and personalised care are key elements of mental health and social care policy. Although these elements have been shown to improve service user and service-level outcomes, their translation into practice has been inconsistent and social isolation amongst service users persists.AimTo co-adapt, with service users, carers/supporters and health professionals, a web-based social network intervention, GENIE™, for use in secondary mental health services. The intervention is designed to support social activity and preference discussions between mental healthcare professionals and service users as a means of connecting individuals to local resources.MethodsIn Phase 1 (LEARN), we completed two systematic reviews to synthesise the existing evidence relating to the i) effectiveness and ii) the implementation of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 15 stakeholders previously involved in the implementation of the intervention in physical healthcare settings. Interviews were also conducted with 5 national key stakeholders in mental health (e.g., policy makers, commissioners, third sector leads) to explore wider implementation issues. In Phase 2 (ADAPT), we worked iteratively with eight service users, nine carers, six professionals/volunteers and our patient and public advisory group. We drew on a framework for experience-based co-design, consisting of a series of stakeholder consultation events, to discuss the use of the social network intervention, in mental health services. Participants also considered factors that could serve as enablers, barriers, and challenges to local implementation.ResultsAcross the stakeholder groups there was broad agreement that the social network intervention had potential to be useful within mental health services. In terms of appropriate and effective implementation, such an intervention was predicted to work best within the care planning process, on discharge from hospital and within early intervention services. There were indications that the social connection mapping and needs assessment components were of most value and feasible to implement which points to the potential utility of a simplified version compared to the one used in this study. The training provided to facilitators was considered to be more important than their profession and there were indications that service users should be offered the opportunity to invite a carer, friend, or family member to join them in the intervention.ConclusionThe GENIE™ intervention has been co-adapted for use in mental health services and a plan for optimal implementation has been co-produced. The next phase of the programme of work is to design and implement a randomised controlled trial to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of a simplified version of the intervention.

Dataset Information

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

Publications

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets