Patients' and doctors' views and experiences of the patient safety trajectory of breast cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Successful breast cancer outcomes can be jeopardised by adverse events. Understanding and integrating patients' and doctors' perspectives into care trajectories could improve patient safety. This study assessed their views on, and experiences of, medical error and patient safety. METHODS: A cross-sectional, quantitative 20-40 item questionnaire for patients attending Cork University Hospital Cancer Centre and breast cancer doctors in the Republic of Ireland was developed. Domains included demographics, medical error experience, patient safety opinions and concerns. RESULTS: 184 patients and 116 doctors completed the survey. Of the doctors, 41.4% felt patient safety had deteriorated over the previous five years and 54.3% felt patient safety measures were inadequate compared to 13.0% and 27.7% of patients respectively. Of the 30 patients who experienced medical errors/negligence claims, 18 reported permanent or long-term physical and emotional effects. Forty-two of 48 (87.5%) doctors who experienced medical errors/negligence claims reported emotional health impacts. Almost half of doctors involved in negligence claims considered early retirement. Forty-four patients and 154 doctors didn't experience errors but reported their patient safety concerns. Doctors were more concerned about communication and administrative errors, staffing and organisational factors compared to patients. Multiple barriers to error reporting were highlighted. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess patients' and doctors' patient safety views and medical error/negligence claims experiences in breast cancer care in Ireland. Experience of medical error/negligence claims had long-lasting implications for both groups. Doctors were concerned about a multitude of errors and causative factors. Failure to embed these findings is a missed opportunity to improve safety.

Dealing with digital paralysis: Surviving a cyberattack in a National Cancer center.

INTRODUCTION: Cyberattacks represent a growing threat for healthcare delivery globally. We assess the impact and implications of a cyberattack on a cancer center in Ireland. METHODS: On May 14th 2021 (day 0) Cork University Hospital (CUH) Cancer Center was involved in the first national healthcare ransomware attack in Ireland. Contingency plans were only present in laboratory services who had previously experienced information technology (IT) failures. No hospital cyberattack emergency plan was in place. Departmental logs of activity for 120 days after the attack were reviewed and compared with historical activity records. Daily sample deficits (routine daily number of samples analyzed - number of samples analyzed during cyberattack) were calculated. Categorical variables are reported as median and range. Qualitative data were collected via reflective essays and interviews with key stakeholders from affected departments in CUH. RESULTS: On day 0, all IT systems were shut down. Radiotherapy (RT) treatment and cancer surgeries stopped, outpatient activity fell by 50%. hematology, biochemistry and radiology capacity fell by 90% (daily sample deficit (DSD) 2700 samples), 75% (DSD 2250 samples), and 90% (100% mammography/PET scan) respectively. Histopathology reporting times doubled (7 to 15 days). Radiotherapy (RT) was interrupted for 113 patients in CUH. The median treatment gap duration was six days for category 1 patients and 10 for the remaining patients. Partner organizations paused all IT links with CUH. Outsourcing of radiology and radiotherapy commenced, alternative communication networks and national conference calls in RT and Clinical Trials were established. By day 28 Email communication was restored. By day 210 reporting and data storage backlogs were cleared and over 2000 computers were checked/replaced. CONCLUSION: Cyberattacks have rapid, profound and protracted impacts. While laboratory and diagnostic deficits were readily quantified, the impact of disrupted/delayed care on patient outcomes is less readily quantifiable. Cyberawareness and cyberattack plans need to be embedded in healthcare. POLICY SUMMARY: Cyberattacks pose significant challenges for healthcare systems, impacting patient care, clinical outcomes, and staff wellbeing. This study provides a comprehensive review of the impact of the Conti ransomware attack on cancer services in Cork University Hospital (CUH), the first cyberattack on a national health service. Our study highlights the widespread disruption caused by a cyberattack including shutdown of information technology (IT) services, marked reduction in outpatient activity, temporary cessation of essential services such as radiation therapy. We provide a framework for other institutions for mitigating the impact of a cyberattack, underscoring the need for a cyberpreparedness plan similar to those made for natural disasters and the profound legacy of a cyberattack on patient care.

Room to Improve: An Audit of In-Hospital End-of-Life Care for Oncology Patients in a Tertiary Cancer Centre in Ireland During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic compounded isolation for patients through social distancing measures and staff shortages. We were concerned about the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of care provided at end-of-life in 2021 in a national cancer centre, and instigated the first ever review of the care of the dying. Quality of care was assessed retrospectively using a validated instrument developed by the United Kingdom's National Quality Board. Sixty-six patient deaths occurred in our cancer centre in 2021. The 'risk of dying' was documented in 65.2% of records. Palliative care services were involved in 77%, and pastoral care in 10.6%. What was important to the patient was documented in 24.2%. The 'quality-of-death' score was satisfactory for most but poor in 21.2%. Our study prompted change, including appointment of an end-of-life coordinator, development of a checklist to ensure comprehensive communication, expansion of the end-of-life committee to include junior doctors, and regular audit.

Clinical Outcomes of Start-Low, Go-Slow Methadone Initiation for Cancer-Related Pain: What's the Hurry?

BACKGROUND: Methadone has been shown to be effective for cancer pain. Most published switching methods are complete in less than three days, requiring very close supervision, usually in an inpatient setting. This need for hospitalization is a barrier to access. We present a large retrospective study of slow outpatient methadone starts and describe our starting method. METHODS: Charts were reviewed of patients referred to the Pain and Symptom Management/Palliative Care clinics at the six BC Cancer Agency's regional centers that underwent initiation of methadone for analgesia over a 14-year period. Patient characteristics, method of start, and outcomes of methadone treatment were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 652 identified patients, we were able to determine outcomes of methadone initiation in 564 (86.5%). Among these, 422 (74.8%) were deemed successful initiations, as determined by whether or not the patient remained on methadone at follow-up with subjective improvement in pain control, on a stable dose of methadone. Of the unsuccessful trials, 97/142 were primarily due to adverse events, 16 of which were considered serious enough to require hospitalization, including two due to sudden cessation of opioid therapy leading to withdrawal. Some of the included adverse events were not necessarily causal from the initiation of methadone, for example, development of bowel obstruction or delirium. Only one death occurred from a deliberate overdose of multiple medications, including methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of methadone for analgesia in ambulatory cancer patients can be done safely in an outpatient setting using a start-low go-slow method, and can be expected to be helpful in ∼75% of patients. Discontinuation is more likely to be for side effects than for inadequate analgesia. Access to methadone therapy can safely be widened by slow initiation, avoiding more dangerous rapid switching protocols and reducing the need for hospitalization.

Place of care: from referral to specialist palliative care until death.

BACKGROUND: While there are many poorly standardised studies focusing on place of death, there are limited data on place(s) of care during the final stages of disease. AIM: This study aims to identify where patients are cared for in the interval from referral to specialist palliative care until death. METHODS: All patients who died while under the care of a specialist palliative care service over a 6-month period were considered. RESULTS: Of the 507 patients included, 255 (50.3%) were men and 428 (84.4%) had a malignant diagnosis. The mean referral-to-death interval was 70 days (SD 113, Range 1-838). The majority (n=281, 55.4%) received care in a single care setting-hospital (28.4%), home (21.5%), nursing home/community hospital (4.1%), hospice (1.4%)-and had a shorter mean referral-to-death interval. Most patients with more than one care setting spent three-quarters of their time in their normal place of residence. A total of 199 (39.3%) died in hospital, 131 (25.8%) in hospice, 131 (25.8%) at home (25.8%) and 46 (9.1%) in a nursing home/community hospital. Patients referred by a general practitioner (n=80 patients, 15.8%) were more likely to be cared for at home (p<0.001), and die at home (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients received specialist palliative care across multiple care settings. Late referral is associated with a single domain of care. General practitioner involvement supports patient care and death at home. Place of care and ease of transfer between care settings may be better indicators of the quality of care we provide.