Dataset Information

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

ABSTRACT: Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics.There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews.Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

SUBMITTER: Corrie PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3776975 | biostudies-other | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProspective, international, multi-centre, randomised (1:1) trial to evaluate the clinical impact of percutaneous transluminal renal artery stenting (PTRAS) on the impaired renal function measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with haemodynamically significant atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.MethodsPatients will be randomised to receive either PTRAS using the Dynamic Renal Stent system plus best medical treatment or best medical treatment. Renal stenting will be performed under angiographic imaging. For patients randomised to best medical treatment the degree of stenosis measured by renal duplex sonography (RDS) will be confirmed by MR angio or multi-slice CT where possible. Best medical treatment will be initiated at randomisation or post procedure (for PTRAS arm only), and adjusted as needed at all visits. Best medical treatment is defined as optimal drug therapy for control of the major risk factors (blood pressure < or = 125/80 mmHg, LDL cholesterol < or = 100 mg/dL, HbA1c < or = 6.5%). Data recordings include serum creatinine values, eGFR, brain natriuretic peptide, patients' medical history and concomitant medication, clinical events, quality of life questionnaire (SF-12v2), 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement, renal artery duplex ultrasound and echocardiography. Follow-up intervals are at 2, 6, 12 and 36 months following randomisation.The primary endpoint is the difference between treatments in change of eGFR over 12 months. Major secondary endpoints are technical success, change of renal function based on the eGFR slope change between pre-treatment and post-treatment (i.e. improvement, stabilisation, failure), clinical events overall such as renal or cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency (i.e. need for dialysis), need of target vessel revascularisation or target lesion revascularisation, change in average systolic and diastolic blood pressure, change in left ventricular mass index calculated from echocardiography, difference in the size of kidney (pole to pole length) measured by renal duplex sonography, total number, drug name, drug class, daily dose, regimen and Defined Daily Dose (DDD), of anti-hypertensive drugs, and change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Approximately 30 centres in Europe and South America will enrol patients. Duration of enrolment is expected to be 12 months resulting in study duration of 48 months.Trial registrationTrial registration numberNCT00640406.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the extent of patient engagement in the development of best practice reports related to transitions from hospital to home.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Trip Database, DynaMed Plus and Public Health Plus) and multiple provincial regulatory agency and healthcare organisation websites.Eligibility criteriaWe included best practice reports related to the transition from hospital to a long-term care facility, community dwelling or rehabilitation centre. We included documents disseminated in English between 1947 and 2019.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened for eligibility and one extracted and analysed data using a data extraction tool we developed based on established patient engagement frameworks. Only records actively engaging patients were analysed (n=11). The methodological quality of actively engaging patients was assessed using domain 2 (item 5) of stakeholder involvement from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.ResultsThe search yielded 1921 citations of which 23 met the inclusion criteria and were included for narrative synthesis. These were disseminated between 1995 and 2019, with 18 (78%) published after 2010. Most were conducted in North America (USA 43%, Canada 22%), Europe (UK 30%) and Australia (4%). Eleven (48%) actively involved patients, of which only two involved patients across all stages of development. Most involved patients through direct or indirect consultation. The mean AGREE II domain 2 item 5 score (of those that actively engaged patients) was 5.9 out of 7.ConclusionsOnly half of existing best practice reports related to the transition from hospital to home actively involved patients in report development. However, the extent of patient engagement has been increasing over time. More organisations should strive to engage patients throughout the best practice development process and provide patients with opportunities for shared leadership.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare 90-day postoperative complication rates between Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA vs Community Care (CC) during the first year of implementation of the Veterans Choice Act.Data sourcesFiscal Year (FY) 2015 VA and CC outpatient data from VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) 10/01/14-9/30/15). FY14 data were used to obtain baseline clinical information prior to surgery.Study designRetrospective one-year study using secondary data to compare 90-day complication rates following cataract surgery (measured using National Quality Forum (NQF) criteria) in VA vs CC. NQF defines major complications from a specified list of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We ran a series of logistic regression models to predict 90-day complication rates, adjusting for Veterans' sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative ocular conditions, eye risk group, and type of cataract surgery (classified as routine vs complex).Data collectionWe linked VA and CC users through patient identifiers obtained from the CDW files. Our sample included all enrolled Veterans who received outpatient cataract surgery either in the VA or through CC during FY15. Cataract surgeries were identified through CPT codes 66 984 (routine) and 66 982 (complex).Principal findingsOf the 83,879 cataract surgeries performed in FY15, 31 percent occurred through CC. Undergoing complex surgery and having a high-risk eye (based on preoperative ocular conditions) were the strongest clinical predictors of 90-day postoperative complications. Overall, we found low complication rates, ranging from 1.1 percent in low-risk eyes to 3.6 percent in high-risk eyes. After adjustment for important confounders (eg, race, rurality, and preoperative ocular conditions), there were no statistically significant differences in 90-day complication rates between Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA vs CC.ConclusionsAs more Veterans seek care through CC, future studies should continue to monitor quality of care across the two care settings to help inform VA's "make vs buy decisions."

Dataset Information

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets