Fit for Cancer Treatment: a prospective feasibility study of primary care initiated prehabilitation for patients with suspected cancer.

BACKGROUND: Risk profile assessment and corrective interventions using optimisation of health status and prehabilitation represent an important strategy in the management of patients with a suspected cancer diagnosis. AIM: To determine the feasibility of pre-treatment optimisation and prehabilitation commenced at index primary care consultation, to improve patients' preparation for treatment by maximising the time available. DESIGN & SETTING: Between January 2015 and May 2016, 195 patients presenting to 12 GP practices were deemed eligible to enter the study, of which 189 (96.9%, median age 60 [21-91] years and 65 months; 124 female) were recruited and consented to the prehabilitation bundle. METHOD: All patients were simultaneously referred to secondary care using urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathways. The primary outcome measures were definitive diagnosis and treatment plan. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (7.9%) were diagnosed with cancer (three breast, three colon, two lung, two skin [one melanoma, one sarcoma], one tonsil, one vocal cord, one pancreas, one prostate, one ependymoma) and 62 were diagnosed with other significant medical conditions (47 gastrointestinal, 13 sepsis, two respiratory) requiring secondary care assessment and treatment. Of the 15 patients with cancer, 11 (73.3%) underwent potentially curative treatment, and four (26.7%) palliative treatment. Of the total study cohort, 84 (44%) required a form of optimisation in primary care, and patients with cancer were more likely to require optimisation than others (n = 10 [63%] versus n = 74 [43%], χ2 9.384, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: One in 12 primary care USC patients had cancer (5.6% receiving potentially curative treatment), one in three had other systemic health issues, and overall two in five benefited from healthcare intervention. Primary care optimisation was feasible and associated with important allied health benefits.

Do Mobile Phone Applications Improve Glycemic Control (HbA1c) in the Self-management of Diabetes? A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of mobile phone applications (apps) on glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant studies that were published between 1 January 1996 and 1 June 2015 were searched from five databases: Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated diabetes apps were included. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) of the evidence. RESULTS: Participants from 14 studies (n = 1,360) were included and quality assessed. Although there may have been clinical diversity, all type 2 diabetes studies reported a reduction in HbA1c. The mean reduction in participants using an app compared with control was 0.49% (95% Cl 0.30, 0.68; I2 = 10%), with a moderate GRADE of evidence. Subgroup analyses indicated that younger patients were more likely to benefit from the use of diabetes apps, and the effect size was enhanced with health care professional feedback. There was inadequate data to describe the effectiveness of apps for type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Apps may be an effective component to help control HbA1c and could be considered as an adjuvant intervention to the standard self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes. Given the reported clinical effect, access, and nominal cost of this technology, it is likely to be effective at the population level. The functionality and use of this technology need to be standardized, but policy and guidance are anticipated to improve diabetes self-management care.

Safety incidents in the primary care office setting.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, 26% of child deaths have identifiable failures in care. Although children account for 40% of family physicians' workload, little is known about the safety of care in the community setting. Using data from a national patient safety incident reporting system, this study aimed to characterize the pediatric safety incidents occurring in family practice. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective, cross-sectional, mixed methods study of pediatric reports submitted to the UK National Reporting and Learning System from family practice. Analysis involved detailed data coding using multiaxial frameworks, descriptive statistical analysis, and thematic analysis of a special-case sample of reports. Using frequency distributions and cross-tabulations, the relationships between incident types and contributory factors were explored. RESULTS: Of 1788 reports identified, 763 (42.7%) described harm to children. Three crosscutting priority areas were identified: medication management, assessment and referral, and treatment. The 4 incident types associated with the most harmful outcomes are errors associated with diagnosis and assessment, delivery of treatment and procedures, referrals, and medication provision. Poor referral and treatment decisions in severely unwell or vulnerable children, along with delayed diagnosis and insufficient assessment of such children, featured prominently in incidents resulting in severe harm or death. CONCLUSION: This is the first analysis of nationally collected, family practice-related pediatric safety incident reports. Recommendations to mitigate harm in these priority areas include mandatory pediatric training for all family physicians; use of electronic tools to support diagnosis, management, and referral decision-making; and use of technological adjuncts such as barcode scanning to reduce medication errors.