Communicating effectively to patients about a cancer referral.

BACKGROUND: The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises GPs to inform patients referred to the Urgent Suspected Cancer (USC) pathway about their impending service and expectations. However, little is known about patient experiences and information needs post-referral. GPs often grapple with conveying the urgency of referrals while offering reassurance. AIM: This study explores GP communication regarding cancer and USC referrals. METHOD: A secondary analysis of 23 audio-recorded GP-patient consultations, selected from a larger dataset of 200 consultations in Surrey and London (2017-2018), was conducted, focusing on discussions related to cancer. RESULTS: We found that most GPs informed patients that they might have cancer and engaged in reassurance about the patient's low risk of cancer using personalised risk statements. Some GPs, however, avoided all mention of cancer, using symptom-led language instead. GPs tended to focus on communicating practical rather than support-based information when discussing the referral. While most GPs informed patients that they would be seen by a specialist within two weeks, few discussed patients' support needs during the referral or specialist appointment. CONCLUSION: This presentation will offer language recommendations for clear communication about cancer referrals. This plays an important role in promoting shared decision-making and driving patient attendance for investigations. The study highlights the need for further research on communication practices around cancer referral to improve patient understanding and experience. Our recommendations for enhanced communication may improve patient outcomes by optimising routes to diagnosis via primary care.

What your patient needs to know about a non-specific symptom pathway referral for suspected cancer.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific symptom (NSS) pathways were implemented in the UK in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue, or GP 'gut feeling'. AIM: To explore patients' experiences of NSS pathways, and their potential support needs in terms of understanding and navigating these pathways. METHOD: This study employed ethnographic methods across four NHS trusts in England, including interviews with 28 patients and 28 professionals, patient shadowing, and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. Analysis focused on patient communication and understanding of care. RESULTS: Patients found it hard to understand why they were referred. Only a minority of patients appreciated that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. Progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. Investigations often resulted in incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure what to do following discharge. CONCLUSION: The findings resulted in recommended messages for GPs to support patients on referral to NSS pathways, including the nature of the pathway, the team that will be responsible for their care, the multiple organ systems that will potentially be investigated, and what will happen if they don't find a cancer. Without this support, patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting, or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history.

Personal and organisational health literacy in the non-specific symptom pathway for cancer: An ethnographic study.

INTRODUCTION: People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non-specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways. METHODS: This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy. RESULTS: Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge. CONCLUSION: We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help-seeking post-discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.-A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations. RESULTS: Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications. CONCLUSION: Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent. HIGHLIGHTS: Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor.Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms.Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers.Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer.Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Using an electronic safety netting tool designed to improve safety with respect to cancer referral in primary care: a qualitative service evaluation using rapid appraisal methods.

BACKGROUND: This evaluation assesses the impact of an electronic safety netting software (E-SN) package, C the Signs, in primary care services across five boroughs in North East London (NEL). AIM: This study evaluates the use of E-SN software in primary care, examining its benefits and barriers, safety implications, and overall impact on individual and practice usage. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study is based on semi-structured interviews with 21 clinical and non-clinical members of staff from all primary care services using the software in NEL. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather data on individual use of the software, safety implications and practice use of features such as the monitoring dashboard. Data were analysed using a rapid qualitative methodology. RESULTS: Two approaches to E-SN software adoption were reported: whole practice adoption and self-directed use. Practices benefitted from shared responsibility for safety netting and using software to track patients' progress in secondary care. Adoption was affected by information technology and administrative resources. Decision-support tools were used infrequently due to a lack of appreciation for their benefits. Selective adoption of different E-SN functions restricted its potential impact on early diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The use of E-SN software in primary care services in NEL varied among participants. While some found it to be beneficial, others were sceptical of its impact on clinical decision-making. Nonetheless, the software was found to be effective in managing referral processes and tracking patients' progress in other points of care.

Assessing awareness of blood cancer symptoms and barriers to symptomatic presentation: measure development and results from a population survey in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Low levels of cancer awareness may contribute to delays in seeking medical help and subsequent delays in diagnosis. For blood cancer this may be a particularly prominent problem due to the high prevalence of undifferentiated symptoms such as bodily pain, weakness, nausea and weight loss, resulting in low symptom awareness. The delay is exacerbated by the dismissal of similar symptoms which are often interpreted as mild disease, resulting in multiple consultations prior to diagnosis. This study describes the development of a Cancer Awareness Measure for Blood Cancer (Blood CAM) and presents results from a population-representative survey using the measure. METHODS: A rapid systematic review identified constructs relevant to blood cancer. Items were taken from previous awareness measures and other literature and reviewed by expert groups including health care professionals and patients. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten members of the public to check comprehension and clarity. A total sample of 434 participants completed the survey at Time 1 and n = 302 at Time 2 (two weeks later). RESULTS: Internal reliability was high across the different constructs included in the questionnaire (> 0.70) and test-retest reliability was moderate to good (0.49-0.79). The most commonly recognised blood cancer symptoms were unexplained weight loss (68.9%) and unexplained bleeding (64.9%) and the least commonly recognised symptoms were night sweats (31.3%) breathlessness and rash/itchy skin (both 44%). In terms of symptom experience, fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom (26.7%) followed by night sweats (25.4%). Exploratory factor analysis of barriers to presenting at primary care revealed three distinct categories of barriers; emotional, external/practical and service/healthcare professional related. Service and emotional barriers were most common. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a valid and reliable tool to assess blood cancer awareness and showed variable awareness of blood cancer symptoms which can help target public health campaigns. We also incorporated additional measures (e.g. confidence to re-consult, ability to understand symptoms) that could be used to tailor public messaging for blood cancer and for other harder to suspect and diagnose cancers.

Electronic safety-netting tool features considered important by UK general practice staff: an interview and Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The potential of the electronic health record to support safety netting has been recognised and a number of electronic safety-netting (E-SN) tools developed. AIM: To establish the most important features of E-SN tools. DESIGN & SETTING: User-experience interviews followed by a Delphi study in a primary care setting in the UK. METHOD: The user-experience interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff who had trialled the EMIS E-SN toolkit for suspected cancer. An electronic modified Delphi approach was used, with primary care staff involved in safety netting in any capacity, to measure consensus on tool features. RESULTS: Thirteen user-experience interviews were carried out and features of E-SN tools seen as important formed the majority of the features included in the Delphi study. Three rounds of Delphi survey were administered. Sixteen responders (64%) completed all three rounds, and 28 out of 44 (64%) features reached consensus. Primary care staff preferred tools that were general in scope. CONCLUSION: Primary care staff indicated that tools that were not specific to cancer or any other disease, and had features that promoted their flexible, efficient, and integrated use, were important. However, when the important features were discussed with the patient and public involvement (PPI) group, they expressed disappointment that features they believed would make E-SN tools robust and provide a safety net that is difficult to fall through did not reach consensus. The successful adoption of E-SN tools will rely on an evidence base of their effectiveness. Efforts should be made to assess the impact of these tools on patient outcomes.

The relationship between patient enablement and help-seeking in the context of blood cancer symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Approaches to improve earlier diagnosis of cancer often focus on symptom awareness as a key driver of help-seeking behaviour and other psychological influences are less well understood. This is the first study to explore the role of patient enablement on help-seeking for people experiencing potential blood cancer symptoms. METHODS: A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey was completed by 434 respondents (>18 years). Questions asked about symptom experiences, medical help-seeking and re-consultation. Existing patient enablement items were included in the newly developed Blood Cancer Awareness Measure. We collected data on patient socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of those responding to the survey 224/434 (51.6%) reported experiencing at least one potential blood cancer symptom. Half of those experiencing symptoms (112/224) had sought medical help. Results from logistic regression analysis showed that higher scores on patient enablement were associated with being less likely to seek help (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, Confidence Interval [CI] 0.81-0.98) after controlling for socio-demographics. Separate analyses showed that higher enablement was associated with being more comfortable to re-consult if symptoms didn't go away or got worse (OR 1.31, CI 1.16-1.48); after a test result suggested there was nothing to worry about, but symptoms persisted (OR 1.23, CI 1.12-1.34) or to request further tests, scans or investigations (OR 1.31, CI 1.19-1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypotheses, patient enablement was associated with lower likelihood of help-seeking for potential blood cancer symptoms. Yet enablement appears to play an important role in likelihood of re-consulting when symptoms persist, get worse or need further investigation.

What causes delays in diagnosing blood cancers? A rapid review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook a rapid review of literature relating to the diagnosis of blood cancers, to find out what factors contribute to delays in diagnosis, including symptom recognition, appraisal and help-seeking behaviours. METHODS: We used rapid review methodology following Tricco et al. to synthesise current literature from two electronic databases. We searched for studies about symptom appraisal help-seeking for all blood cancers published between 2001 and 2021, written in English. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review, of which 10 were published in the United Kingdom. We found a number of factors associated with delays in blood cancer diagnosis. These included patient factors such as gender, age and ethnicity, as well as health system factors such as poor communication and seeing a locum clinician in primary care. A narrative synthesis of the evidence produced four types of symptom interpretation by patients: (1) symptoms compatible with normal state of health, (2) event-linked problems, (3) mild or chronic illness and (4) non-specific unwell state. These four interpretations were linked to different help-seeking behaviours. After seeking help, patients often experienced delays due to healthcare professionals' (HCPs') non-serious interpretation of symptoms, misleading blood tests, discontinuity of care and other barriers in the diagnostic pathway. CONCLUSION: Blood cancers are difficult to diagnose due to non-specific heterogeneous symptoms, and this is reflected in how those symptoms are interpreted by patients and managed by HCPs. It is important to understand how different interpretations affect delays in help-seeking, and what HCPs can do to support timely follow-up for patients.

What are the similarities and differences in lung cancer symptom appraisal and help-seeking according to smoking status? A qualitative study with lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer in never-smokers represents a growing proportion of patients. The relationship between smoking status, symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour is complex. Little is known about cancer symptom-related health behaviours according to smoking status. The aim of the study was to explore lung cancer patients' experiences of a lung cancer diagnosis, identifying differences by smoking history. METHOD: This was a qualitative study involving telephone interviews with 40 lung cancer patients (20 never smokers, 11 former smokers and 9 current smokers). We used framework analysis to analyse the data using the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-Regulation as a theoretical framework, developed after initial analysis. RESULTS: All patients were likely to delay seeking help for symptoms in primary care regardless of smoking history, but for different reasons. Smoking history was instrumental to how individuals perceived and responded to early symptoms of lung cancer. Differences in interpretation and coping responses to new symptoms seemed to be caused by the higher presence of comorbidities due to smoking, and perceptions of the current state of health. Individuals with a smoking history reported acting with urgency in seeking help and follow up, whereas patients who experienced low levels of concern were more easily reassured by clinicians, resulting in delays. CONCLUSIONS: Never and former smokers perceive, interpret, and respond to symptoms of lung cancer differently to smokers. However, few people attribute their lung symptoms to cancer initially, even with a smoking history. Interventions that drive increased urgency and vigilance in never smokers may be effective.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours. METHODS: Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2-3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2-5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs' safety netting strategies and patients' appetite for active follow up measures. CONCLUSIONS: Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes. AIM: To understand how patients' help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups. RESULTS: Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England.

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change.

"Attending to History" in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration.

BACKGROUND: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC. RESULTS: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge. CONCLUSION: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change.

Inter-organisational collaboration enabling care delivery in a specialist cancer surgery provider network: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the processes, challenges and strategies used to govern and maintain inter-organisational collaboration between professionals in a provider network in London, United Kingdom, which implemented major system change focused on the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery. METHODS: We used a qualitative design involving interviews with stakeholders (n = 117), non-participant observations (n = 163) and documentary analysis (n = 100). We drew on an existing model of collaboration in healthcare organisations and expanded this framework by applying it to the analysis of collaboration in the context of major system change. RESULTS: Network provider organisations established shared goals, maintained central figures who could create and sustain collaboration, and promoted distributed forms of leadership. Still, organisations continued to encounter barriers or challenges in relation to developing opportunities for mutual acquaintanceship across all professional groups; the active sharing of knowledge, expertise and good practice across the network; the fostering of trust; and creation of information exchange infrastructures fit for collaborative purposes. CONCLUSION: Collaborative relationships changed over time, becoming stronger post-implementation in some areas, but continued to be negotiated where resistance to the centralisation remained. Future research should explore the sustainability of these relationships and further unpack how hierarchies and power relationships shape inter-organisational collaboration.

Decision Support Tools for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Information Content, Format, and Presentation Methods.

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.