A national survey of hereditary colorectal cancer services in the UK.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Monahan KJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5369712 | biostudies-other | 2014 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe management of obstetric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to human-to-human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires unique considerations. Many aspects of labour and delivery practice required adaptation in response to the global pandemic and were supported by guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. The adoption and adherence to these guidelines is unknown.MethodsParticipating centres in "Quality of Recovery in Obstetric Anaesthesia study-a multicentre study" (ObsQoR) completed an electronic survey based on the provision of services and care related to COVID-19 in October 2021. The survey was designed against the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists COVID-19 guidelines.ResultsOne hundred and five of the 107 participating centres completed the survey (98% response rate representing 54% of all UK obstetric units). The median [IQR] annual number of deliveries among the included sites was 4389 [3000-5325]. Ninety-nine of the 103 (94.3%) sites had guidelines for the management of peripartum women with COVID-19. Sixty-one of 105 (58.1%) sites had specific guidance for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Thirty-seven of 104 (35.6%) centres restricted parturient birthing plans if a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 was made. A COVID-19 vaccination referral pathway encouraging full vaccination for all pregnant women was present in 63/103 centres (61.2%).ConclusionWe found variability in care delivered and adherence to guidelines related to COVID-19. The clinical implications for this related to quality of peripartum care is unclear, however there remains scope to improve pathways for immunisation, birth plans and VTE prophylaxis.
| S-EPMC9335395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviding psychological support to people living with terminal illness is a fundamental part of hospice care. Recent research on delivery of psychological services in hospices in the United Kingdom (UK) on a national level, including inequalities or variation in practice, is limited. A nationwide survey will highlight any differences in provision and in doing so help focus future research and inform best practice both within the UK, and internationally. The specific objectives of this survey are to (1) chart the types of psychological support available to adult patients in hospices in the UK in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence model; (2) explore how services are organised; and (3) gather service perspectives on adequacy of care, and facilitators and barriers to appropriate practice.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey emailed to adult hospices in the UK in November-December 2019. One staff member involved in the delivery and/or organisation of psychological support was invited to participate per hospice. Of 193 invited hospices, 116 took part.ResultsSixteen percent rated their hospice psychological service as wholly adequate. The majority reported that services can access specialist professionals, but many relied on external referrals. Barriers to best practice included funding and staff capacity; facilitators included clear referral structures, audit and appropriate needs and outcome assessments.ConclusionsAccess to psychological professionals has improved since the last survey 15 years ago, but the majority of responders felt their overall service was not wholly adequate. Basic emotional support is largely felt to be sufficient, but our results indicate a need for improvements in access to more specialist care. Partnerships with external mental health services may be key. Our findings highlight core facilitators and barriers to providing good psychological care at the end of life that should be considered by services both within the UK and on an international level.
| S-EPMC7874563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer.DesignQuestionnaire survey.SettingGynaecological cancer centres and units.Geographical location uk participantsMembers of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses.InterventionsA questionnaire survey.Outcome measuresTo determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer.ResultsA total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved general practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 responses (25%) and patient-initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital-based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient-initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents (76/117 (65%)) provided routine tests, of which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Patients were usually discharged after 5 years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after 4 years, nine (8%) after three years and one (1%) after 2 years.ConclusionsPractice varied but most used a standard hospital-based protocol of appointments for 5 years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.
| S-EPMC3731722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK.DesignCross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey.SettingInstitutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases.ParticipantsMultiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site.ResultsResponses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services.ConclusionOverall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions.
| S-EPMC8491421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade.MethodsBetween April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82-question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders.ResultsThe overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01).ConclusionsDespite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs.
| S-EPMC7160033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There have been significant changes in the management of out of hours services in ophthalmology recently. The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) and economic measures have anecdotally reduced the availability of staff and facilities outside normal working hours, and there have been various responses to the provision of emergency surgical care. There are disparate attitudes to the optimum management of the emergency surgical case. We sought to establish a nationwide picture of the management of out of hours surgery.A questionnaire was distributed to every consultant ophthalmologist working in the NHS and registered with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (n=947). Information was requested regarding departmental and personal policies, local facilities, and personal beliefs regarding emergency surgery.A total of 440 (46.5%) questionnaires were returned from 155 units; 18.7% of the units had no out of hours services or no operating facilities. Sixty-three percent of units reported a local policy regarding a time after which patients should not be taken to theatre. For 57%, this time began between 2100 hours and midnight. The most common reasons for not operating after a certain time were 'belief that delay does not significantly affect the outcome' (41.6%), 'delayed access to theatre due to competition with other surgical specialities' (40%), and 'no specialist ophthalmic-theatre nursing input' (32.7%).We report the first nationwide study on out of hours ophthalmological surgical working practices. This demonstrates variation in work patterns. It is significant to patients and ophthalmologists that there should be units in United Kingdom without full local facilities and staff.
| S-EPMC3597882 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS:To assess trends in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) amongst UK practitioners and changes in practice since a previous similar survey. METHODS:An online questionnaire survey (Typeform Pro) was emailed to British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) members. They included urogynaecologists working in tertiary centres, gynaecologists with a designated special interest in urogynaecology and general gynaecologists. The questionnaire included case scenarios encompassing contentious issues in the surgical management of POP and was a revised version of the questionnaire used in the previous surveys. The revised questionnaire included additional questions relating to the use of vaginal mesh and laparoscopic urogynaecology procedures. RESULTS:Of 516 BSUG members emailed, 212 provided completed responses.. For anterior vaginal wall prolapse the procedure of choice was anterior colporrhaphy (92% of respondents). For uterovaginal prolapse the procedure of choice was still vaginal hysterectomy and repair (75%). For posterior vaginal wall prolapse the procedure of choice was posterior colporrhaphy with midline fascial plication (97%). For vault prolapse the procedure of choice was sacrocolpopexy (54%) followed by vaginal wall repair and sacrospinous fixation (41%). The laparoscopic route was preferred for sacrocolpopexy (62% versus 38% for the open procedure). For primary prolapse, vaginal mesh was used by only 1% of respondents in the anterior compartment and by 3% in the posterior compartment. CONCLUSION:Basic trends in the use of native tissue prolapse surgery remain unchanged. There has been a significant decrease in the use of vaginal mesh for both primary and recurrent prolapse, with increasing use of laparoscopic procedures for prolapse.
| S-EPMC5948287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAccess to health services and adequate care is influenced by sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic position (SEP) and the burden of comorbidities. Our study aimed to assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic further deepened these already existing health inequalities.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingData were collected from five longitudinal age-homogenous British cohorts (born in 2000-2002, 1989-1990, 1970, 1958 and 1946).ParticipantsA web survey was sent to the cohorts. Anybody who responded to the survey was included, resulting in 14 891 eligible participants.Main outcomes measuredThe survey provided data on cancelled surgical or medical appointments, and the number of care hours received in a week during the first UK COVID-19 national lockdown.InterventionsUsing binary or ordered logistic regression, we evaluated whether these outcomes differed by sex, ethnicity, SEP and having a chronic illness. Adjustment was made for study design, non-response weights, psychological distress, presence of children or adolescents in the household, COVID-19 infection, key worker status, and whether participants had received a shielding letter. Meta-analyses were performed across the cohorts, and meta-regression was used to evaluate the effect of age as a moderator.ResultsWomen (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55) and those with a chronic illness (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.05) experienced significantly more cancellations during lockdown (all p<0.0001). Ethnic minorities and those with a chronic illness required a higher number of care hours during the lockdown (both OR≈2.00, all p<0.002). SEP was not associated with cancellation or care hours. Age was not independently associated with either outcome in the meta-regression.ConclusionThe UK government's lockdown approach during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have deepened existing health inequalities, impacting predominantly women, ethnic minorities and those with chronic illnesses. Public health authorities need to implement urgent policies to ensure equitable access to health and care for all in preparation for a fourthwave.
| S-EPMC7978270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of colorectal cancer can be decreased by appropriate use of screening modalities. Patients with a family history of colon cancer and of African-American ethnicity are known to be at higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. We aimed to determine if there is a lack of physician knowledge for colorectal cancer screening guidelines based on family history and ethnicity. Between February and April 2009 an anonymous web-based survey was administered to a random sample selected from a national list of 25,000 internists, family physicians and gastroenterologists. A stratified sampling strategy was used to include practitioners from states with high as well as low CRC incidence. All data analyses were performed following data collection in 2009.ResultsThe average knowledge score was 37 ± 18% among the 512 respondents. Gastroenterologists averaged higher scores compared to internists, and family physicians, p = 0.001. Only 28% of physicians correctly identified the screening initiation point for African-Americans while only 12% of physicians correctly identified the screening initiation point and interval for a patient with a family history of CRC. The most commonly cited barriers to referring high-risk patients for CRC screening were "patient refusal" and "lack of insurance reimbursement."ConclusionsThere is a lack of knowledge amongst physicians of the screening guidelines for high-risk populations, based on family history and ethnicity. Educational programs to improve physician knowledge and to reduce perceived barriers to CRC screening are warranted to address health disparities in colorectal cancer.
| S-EPMC3284403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe adoption of colonoscopy as a primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening technique has been argued for in Korea, without evidence of patient preferences. This study aimed to investigate patients' preferences for the primary CRC screening test for the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP).MethodsBetween June and August 2016, 414 individuals aged ?50 years who participated in the NCSP were prospectively invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their preferences for the primary CRC screening test and the reasons for their selection.ResultsAmong the 396 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 124 individuals (31.3%) preferred the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas 272 individuals (68.7%) preferred colonoscopy. Elderly participants preferred the FIT (p<0.001), whereas participants with a higher education level (p=0.030), a higher income level (p=0.009), or individuals with a family member (p=0.028) or acquaintance (p=0.013) with a history of CRC preferred colonoscopy. Only 12.9% of participants had a bad experience with a previous FIT; however, 39.3% of participants had a bad experience with a previous colonoscopy.ConclusionsColonoscopy was preferred to FIT in a 2.2:1 ratio as the primary CRC screening test for the NCSP. Patients' preference for colonoscopy should be considered for the NCSP in Korea.
| S-EPMC5669598 | biostudies-literature