Acute arsenic exposure secondary to deliberate self-poisoning with sheep dip.

A 53-year-old male patient presented to a regional hospital Emergency Department approximately 2 h post an intentional ingestion of Coopers Instant Wetting Powder Sheep Dip (66% arsenic trioxide, 23% sulphur and 0.42% rotenone), mixed in 600 mL water, as a suicide attempt. On arrival to the Emergency Department, the patient had nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Seven hours post ingestion, hypotension developed (BP 90/60 mmHg) and intravenous fluids were commenced. He later developed QTc prolongation. He was treated with 2,3-Dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (DMPS) and N-acetylcysteine and improved without development of neurology. Further investigation of NAC efficacy in humans in the setting of acute arsenic poisoning is required and the optimal duration of treatment and dosing needs to be established. This case highlights an uncommon poisoning which presented to the Emergency Department, the acute symptoms of arsenic toxicity and considerations for management.

Patient and Public Involvement Refines the Design of ProtOeus: A Proposed Phase II Trial of Proton Beam Therapy in Oesophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer significantly improves overall survival but is associated with severe post-operative complications. Proton beam therapy may reduce these toxicities by sparing normal tissues compared with standard radiotherapy. ProtOeus is a proposed randomised phase II study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer that compares proton beam therapy to standard radiotherapy techniques. As proton beam therapy services are often centralised in academic centres in major cities, proton beam therapy trials raise distinct challenges including patient acceptance of travelling for proton beam therapy, coordination of treatments with local centres and ensuring equity of access for patients. METHODS: Focus groups were held early in the trial development process to establish patients' views on the trial proposal. Topics discussed include perception of proton beam therapy, patient acceptability of the trial pathway and design, patient-facing materials, and common clinical scenarios. Focus groups were led by the investigators and facilitated by patient involvement teams from the institutions who are involved in this research. Responses for each topic were analysed, and fed back to the trial's development group. RESULTS: Three focus groups were held in separate locations in the UK (Manchester, Cardiff, Wigan). Proton beam therapy was perceived as superior to standard radiotherapy making the trial attractive. Patients felt strongly that travel costs should be reimbursed to ensure equity of access to proton beam therapy. They were very supportive of a shorter treatment schedule and felt that toxicity reduction was the most important endpoint. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating patient views early in the trial development process resulted in significant trial design refinements including travel/accommodation provisions, choice of primary endpoint, randomisation ratio and fractionation schedule. Focus groups are a reproducible and efficient method of incorporating the patient and public voice into research.

The development of a scheme of Public & Patient Involvement (PPI) in the Wales Cancer Research Centre (WCRC) and reflections on the process.

The Wales Cancer Research Centre (WCRC) was established in 2015. It made an early and strong commitment to Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in all its work. That commitment was made manifest through the immediate appointment of Lay and Researcher Leads and an administrator to develop and implement a scheme of PPI. At the core of the scheme was the allocation to each of the centre's four themes two Research Partners (RPs), who were to offer routine and strategic support to researchers but also to have a wider ambassadorial role, acting as champions for PPI. The RPs were appointed through a full recruitment process and supported financially, with a 'budget' of 10 half days per annum, with training where needed and supported by a mentor. Their core tasks were defined through an audit of then current practice in PPI within the themes. Monitoring of progress was undertaken at regular group PPI meetings, reports to the centre's funders against key performance indicators and against a rerun of the initial audit. A library of documents was produced to support this work, including a centre policy statement, procedures for the recruitment, training and support of RPs, a partnership agreement between RPs and researchers and a mentorship agreement. Most recently procedures have been drafted to assess the impact on research of PPI. The scheme has been regarded as largely successful by researchers, RPs and the Centre's External Advisory Board. However there remains much to do to ensure consistently high quality involvement of RPs in the centre's research. A significant stumbling block to making progress has been the lack of time given to researchers by funders to become involved in PPI. A reflection on progress against the UK Standards for PPI has identified a number of key actions for the future. They include the roll out of a scheme to assess the impact of PPI and to increase diversity in the centre's pool of RPs.