Learning from new colorectal cancers: a qualitative synthesis of significant event reports.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the UK and a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis provides opportunities for intervention and improved survival. Significant event analysis (SEA) is a well-established quality improvement method for learning from new cancer diagnoses. AIM: To provide additional insights into diagnostic processes for colorectal cancer and to identify areas for improvement in patient care pathways. DESIGN & SETTING: Fifty-three general practices across Pennine Lancashire, England, submitted one or more SEA reports as part of an incentivised scheme. METHOD: A standardised data collection form was used to collate learning points and recommendations for improvements. In total, 161 reports were analysed using an inductive framework analysis approach. RESULTS: There was an overarching theme of building vigilance and collaboration between and within general practices and secondary care. The following four main sub-themes were also identified: education; individualised and flexible care; ownership and continuity; and communication. CONCLUSION: These findings provide additional insights into colorectal cancer pathways from a primary care perspective. Practices should be supported in developing protocols for assessment and follow-up of patients with varying presentations. Screening and access to investigations are paramount for improving early diagnosis; however, a flexible diagnostic approach is required according to the individual circumstances of each patient.

Invitation strategies and participation in a community-based lung cancer screening programme located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Although lung cancer screening is being implemented in the UK, there is uncertainty about the optimal invitation strategy. Here, we report participation in a community screening programme following a population-based invitation approach, examine factors associated with participation, and compare outcomes with hypothetical targeted invitations. METHODS: Letters were sent to all individuals (age 55-80) registered with a general practice (n=35 practices) in North and East Manchester, inviting ever-smokers to attend a Lung Health Check (LHC). Attendees at higher risk (PLCOm2012NoRace score≥1.5%) were offered two rounds of annual low-dose CT screening. Primary care recorded smoking codes (live and historical) were used to model hypothetical targeted invitation approaches for comparison. RESULTS: Letters were sent to 35 899 individuals, 71% from the most socioeconomically deprived quintile. Estimated response rate in ever-smokers was 49%; a lower response rate was associated with younger age, male sex, and primary care recorded current smoking status (adjOR 0.55 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.58), p<0.001). 83% of eligible respondents attended an LHC (n=8887/10 708). 51% were eligible for screening (n=4540/8887) of whom 98% had a baseline scan (n=4468/4540). Screening adherence was 83% (n=3488/4199) and lung cancer detection 3.2% (n=144) over 2 rounds. Modelled targeted approaches required 32%-48% fewer invitations, identified 94.6%-99.3% individuals eligible for screening, and included 97.1%-98.6% of screen-detected lung cancers. DISCUSSION: Using a population-based invitation strategy, in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation, is effective and may increase screening accessibility. Due to limitations in primary care records, targeted approaches should incorporate historical smoking codes and individuals with absent smoking records.

Limits of 'patient-centredness': valuing contextually specific communication patterns.

CONTEXT: Globally, doctor-patient communication is becoming synonymous with high-quality health care in the 21st century. However, what is meant by 'good communication' and whether there is consensus internationally remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: Here, we characterise understandings of 'good communication' in future doctors from medical schools in three contextually contrasting continents. Given locally specific socio-cultural influences, we hypothesised that there would be a lack of global consensus on what constitutes 'good communication'. METHODS: A standardised two-phase methodology was applied in turn to each of three medical schools in the UK, Egypt and India (n = 107 subjects), respectively, in which students were asked: 'What is good communication?' Phase I involved exploratory focus groups to define preliminary themes (mean number of participants per site: 17). Phase II involved thematic confirmation and expansion in one-to-one semi-structured interviews (mean number of participants per site: 18; mean hours of dialogue captured per site: 55). Findings were triangulated and analysed using grounded theory. RESULTS: The overarching theme that emerged from medical students was that 'good communication' requires adherence to certain 'rules of communication'. A shared rule that doctors must communicate effectively despite perceived disempowerment emerged across all sites. However, contradictory culturally specific rules about communication were identified in relation to three major domains: family; gender, and emotional expression. Egyptian students perceived emotional aspects of Western doctors' communication strikingly negatively, viewing these doctors as problematically cold and unresponsive. CONCLUSIONS: Contradictory perceptions of 'good communication' in future doctors are found cross-continentally and may contribute to prevalent cultural misunderstandings in medicine. The lack of global consensus on what defines good communication challenges prescriptively taught Western 'patient-centredness' and questions assumptions about international transferability. Health care professionals must be educated openly about flexible, context-specific communication patterns so that they can avoid cultural incompetence and tailor behaviours in ways that optimise therapeutic outcomes wherever they work around the globe.