Dataset Information

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health-care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients' experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi-structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two-week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross-cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person-centred and informed by patient experience.

SUBMITTER: Haste A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7752202 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Haste Anna A Lambert Mark M Sharp Linda L Thomson Richard R Sowden Sarah S

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20200928 6

<h4>Background</h4>Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health-care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.<h4>Objective</h4>We explored patients' experiences to identify areas for service improvement.<h4>Design</h4>Semi-structured interviews were conducted.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 32989907

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to understand health care provider barriers to referring patients to Medical Fitness Center Facilities within an affiliated teaching hospital system using referral of diabetic services as an example. The aims of this study include: (1) to assess health care providers' awareness and use of facilities, (2) to determine barriers to referring patients to facilities, (3) identify current and needed resources and/or changes to increase referral to facilities.MethodsA 20-item electronic survey and requests for semi-structured interviews were administered to hospital system directors and managers (n = 51). Directors and managers instructed physicians and staff to complete the survey and interviews as applicable. Perceived barriers, knowledge, utilization, and referral of patients to Medical Fitness Center Facilities were collected and examined. Descriptive statistics were generated regarding practice characteristics, provider characteristics, and referral.ResultsOf the health care providers surveyed and interviewed (n = 25) 40% indicated verbally suggesting use of facilities, 24% provided a flyer about the facilities. No respondents indicated that they directly referred patients to the facilities. However, 16% referred patients to other locations for physical activity - including their own department's management and prevention services. 20% do not refer to Medical Fitness Center Facilities or any other lifestyle programs/locations. Lack of time (92%) and lack of standard guidelines and operating procedures (88%) are barriers to referral. All respondents indicated a strong ability to refer patients to Medical Fitness Center Facilities if given education about referral programs available as well as standard clinical guidelines and protocol for delivery.ConclusionThe results of this study indicate that, although few healthcare providers are currently referring patients to Medical Fitness Center Facilities, health care providers with an affiliated Medical Fitness Center Facility not only want clinical standard guidelines, protocol, and training to refer patients to Medical Fitness Center Facilities, but believe they have the ability to increase referral if given these tools. The Medical Fitness Association has a unique opportunity to bridge health care providers to Medical Fitness Center Facilities by developing clinical practice guidelines in cooperation with the American Diabetes Association.

Project description:BackgroundDifferent diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97).ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Project description:Background and objectivesMany donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.Design, setting and participantsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWe identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).ConclusionsDonor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

Dataset Information

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Background

Objective

Design

Setting and participants

Data analysis

Results

Discussion and conclusions

Publications

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets