Dataset Information

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit. DESIGN:Online survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional qualitative free-text responses. Surveys were completed by a staff member from each centre. RESULTS:There were no regional trends in the use of telephone results services, (X² (14, n=63)=11.55, p=0.64), Centres who telephoned results routinely did not deliver results sooner than centres who deliver results in-person (X² (16, n=63)=12.76, p=0.69).When delivering cancer results, 76.2% of centres never telephone results and 23.8% of centres occasionally telephone results. No centres reported delivering cancer results routinely by telephone. Qualitative content analysis suggests that cancer results are only telephoned at the patient request and under exceptional circumstances.When delivering non-cancer results, 12.7% of centres never telephoned results, 38.1% occasionally telephoned results and 49.2% routinely telephoned results. Qualitative content analysis revealed different processes for delivering telephone results, including patient choice and scheduling an in-person results appointment for all women attending breast assessment, then ringing non-cancer results unexpectedly ahead of this prebooked appointment. CONCLUSIONS:In the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, breast assessment results that are cancer are routinely delivered in-person. However, non-cancer breast assessment results are often routinely delivered by telephone, despite breast screening policy recommendations. More research is needed to understand the impact of telephoning results on women attending breast assessment, particularly women who receive a non-cancer result. Future research should also consider how women themselves might prefer to receive their results.

SUBMITTER: Williamson SZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858119 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

Williamson Sian Z SZ Johnson Rebecca R Sandhu Harbinder K HK Ellard David R DR Jenkins Jacquie J Casey Margaret M Kearins Olive O Taylor-Phillips Sian S

BMJ open 20191107 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit.<h4>Design</h4>Online survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional ...[more]

PMID: 31699718

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOne of the main harms from breast cancer screening is the anxiety caused by false positive results. Various factors may be associated with false-positive anxiety. One modifiable factor may be the method of communication used to deliver results. The aim of this study is to measure the effect on anxiety of receiving benign biopsy results in-person or by telephone.Methods and analysisThis is a multi-centre cluster randomised crossover trial in the English National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) involving repeated survey measures at four time points. Participants will be women of screening age who have a biopsy following a suspicious mammography result, who ultimately receive a benign or normal (B1) result. Centres will trial both telephone and in-person results on a month-by-month basis, being randomised to which communication method will be trialled first. Women will be blinded to the method of communication they will receive. The analysis will compare women who have received telephone results and women who have received in-person results. The primary outcome measure will be anxiety (measured by the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire) after receiving results, while controlling for baseline anxiety. Secondary outcome measures will include anxiety at 3 and 6 months post-results, understanding of results and patient preferences for how results are communicated. Qualitative telephone interviews will also be conducted to further explore women's reasons for communication preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated after initial separate analysis using the pillar integration process.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Public Health England Breast Screening Programme Research Advisory Committee, (BSPRAC_0013, ODR1718_040) and the National Health Service Health Research Authority (HRA) West Midlands-Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (17/WM/0313). The findings from this study will be disseminated to key stakeholders within the NHSBSP and via academic publications.Trial registration numberISRCTN36997684 TRIAL SPONSOR: This research is part of a PhD award and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Warwick and Public Health England. The sponsor for this research is Jane Prewett (sponsorship@warwick.ac.uk).

Project description:BackgroundRisk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective.MethodsPhase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified.ResultsWomen in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density.ConclusionsThe information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.

Project description:BackgroundThe communication of a life-changing diagnosis can be a difficult task for doctors with potential long-term effects on patient outcomes. Although several studies have addressed the experiences of individuals with motor neurodegenerative diseases in receiving this diagnosis, a significant research gap exists regarding professionals' perspectives, especially in the UK. This study aimed to assess UK neurologists' current practice and perspectives on delivering the diagnosis of a motor neurodegenerative disease, explore different aspects of the process and detail the potential challenges professionals might face.MethodsWe conducted an anonymised online survey with 44 questions, grouped into four sections; basic demographic information, current practice, the experience of breaking bad news and education and training needs.ResultsForty-nine professionals completed the survey. Overall, participants seemed to meet the setting-related standards of good practice; however, they also acknowledged the difficulty of this aspect of their clinical work, with about half of participants (46.5%) reporting moderate levels of stress while breaking bad news. Patients' relatives were not always included in diagnostic consultations and participants were more reluctant to promote a sense of optimism to patients with poorer prognosis. Although professionals reported spending a mean of around 30-40 min for the communication of these diagnoses, a significant proportion of participants (21-39%) reported significantly shorter consultation times, highlighting organisational issues related to lack of capacity. Finally, the majority of participants (75.5%) reported not following any specific guidelines or protocols but indicated their interest in receiving further training in breaking bad news (78.5%).ConclusionsThis was the first UK survey to address neurologists' practice and experiences in communicating these diagnoses. Although meeting basic standards of good practice was reported by most professionals, we identified several areas of improvement. These included spending enough time to deliver the diagnosis appropriately, including patients' relatives as a standard, promoting a sense of hope and responding to professionals' training needs regarding breaking bad news.

Project description:Pulmonary nodules with intermediate to high risk of malignancy should preferably be diagnosed with image guide minimally invasive diagnostics before treatment. Several technological innovations have been developed to endobronchially navigate to these lesions and obtain tissue for diagnosis. This review addresses these technological advancements in navigation bronchoscopy in three basic steps: navigation, position confirmation and acquisition, with a specific focus on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). For navigation purposes ultrathin bronchoscopy combined with virtual bronchoscopy navigation, electromagnetic navigation and robotic assisted bronchoscopy all achieve good results as a navigation guidance tool, but cannot confirm location or guide biopsy positioning. Diagnostic yield has seen improvement by combining these techniques with a secondary imaging tool like radial endobronchial ultrasound (rEBUS) and fluoroscopy. For confirmation of lesion access, rEBUS provides local detailed ultrasound-imaging and can be used to confirm lesion access in combination with fluoroscopy, measure nodule-contact area length and determine catheter position for sampling. CBCT is the only technology that can provide precise 3D positioning confirmation. When focusing on tissue acquisition, there is often more than 10% difference between reaching the target and getting a diagnosis. This discrepancy is multifactorial and caused by breathing movements, small samples sizes, instrument tip displacements by tool rigidity and tumour inhomogeneity. Yield can be improved by targeting fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid regions, immediate feedback of rapid onsite evaluation, choosing sampling tools with different passive stiffnesses, by increasing the number biopsies taken and (future) catheter modifications like (robotic assisted-) active steering. CBCT with augmented fluoroscopy (CBCT-AF) based navigation bronchoscopy combines navigation guidance with 3D-image confirmation of instrument-in-lesion positioning in one device. CBCT-AF allows for overlaying the lesion and navigation pathway and the possibility to outline trans-parenchymal pathways. It can help guide and verify sampling in 3D in near real-time. Disadvantages are the learning curve, the inherent use of radiation and limited availability/access to hybrid theatres. A mobile C-arm can provide 3D imaging, but lower image quality due to lower power and lower contrast-to-noise ratio is a limiting factor. In conclusion, a multi-modality approach in experienced hands seems the best option for achieving a diagnostic accuracy >85%. Either adequate case selection or detailed 3D imaging are essential to obtain high accuracy. For current and future transbronchial treatments, high-resolution (CBCT) 3D-imaging is essential.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the cancer detection rate and stage after benign stereotactic or ultrasonography (US)-guided core breast biopsy between patients with short-interval follow-up (SIFU) and those who return to annual screening.Materials and methodsThe Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active and passive consent processes and a waiver of consent. All procedures were HIPAA compliant. BCSC data for 1994-2010 were used to compare ipsilateral breast cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics for diagnoses within 3 months after SIFU (3-8 months) versus return to annual screening (RTAS) mammography (9-18 months) after receiving a benign pathology result from image-guided breast biopsy.ResultsIn total, 17 631 biopsies with benign findings were identified with SIFU or RTAS imaging. In the SIFU group, 27 ipsilateral breast cancers were diagnosed in 10 715 mammographic examinations (2.5 cancers per 1000 examinations) compared with 16 cancers in 6916 mammographic examinations in the RTAS group (2.3 cancers per 1000 examinations) (P = .88). Sixteen cancers after SIFU (59%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%, 78%) were invasive versus 12 after RTAS (75%; 95% CI: 48%, 93%). The invasive cancer rate was 1.5 per 1000 examinations after SIFU (95% CI: 0.9, 2.4) and 1.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 0.9, 3.0) after RTAS (P = .70). Among invasive cancers, 25% were late stage (stage 2B, 3, or 4) in the SIFU group (95% CI: 7%, 52%) versus 27% in the RTAS group (95% CI: 6%, 61%). Positive lymph nodes were found in seven (44%; 95% CI: 20%, 70%) invasive cancers after SIFU and in three (25%; 95% CI: 5%, 57%) invasive cancers after RTAS.ConclusionSimilar rates of cancer detection were found between SIFU and RTAS after benign breast biopsy with no significant differences in stage, tumor size, or nodal status, although the present study was limited by sample size. These findings suggest that patients with benign radiologic-pathologic-concordant percutaneous breast biopsy results could return to annual screening.

Dataset Information

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

Publications

Communicating biopsy results from breast screening assessment: current practice in English breast screening centres and staff perspectives of telephoning results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets