An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.

Building on sand: digital technologies for care coordination and advance care planning.

Approaches using digital technologies to support advance care planning (ACP) and care coordination are being used in palliative and end of life care. While providing opportunities to facilitate increases in the completeness, sharing and availability of care plans, the evidence base underpinning their use remains limited. We outline an approach that continues to be developed in England; Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS). Stages governing their optimal use are outlined alongside unanswered questions with relevance across technology-mediated approaches to ACP. Research has a critical role in determining if technology-mediated approaches to ACP, such as EPaCCS, could be useful tools to support the delivery of care for patients with chronic and progressive illnesses.

Underutilisation of EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems) in end-of life-care: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To support greater personalisation of end-of-life care, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) have been implemented across England. Here, we describe patient factors associated with dying with an EPaCCS record and explore the association between having an EPaCCS record with cause and place of death. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study using routinely collected data. Data were extracted from primary care records in 20 of 86 general practices within one Clinical Commissioning Group in England. All deaths (n=1723) recorded between 22 February 2018 and 21 February 2019 were included to determine whether the deceased patient had an EPaCCS record at the time of death, a range of demographic factors, place of death and cause of death. RESULTS: Only 18% of the sample died with an EPaCCS record, and people who died of a non-cancer cause were less likely to have an EPaCCS record than those who died of cancer (OR=0.41; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.55). Adjusting for patient demographic factors and cause of death, having an EPaCCS record was strongly associated with dying in the community (OR=5.10; 95% CI 3.70 to 7.03). CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of this sample died with an EPaCCS record, despite evidence of an association with dying in the community.

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) aim to support people approaching the end of life (EOL) to receive consistent care, according to their wishes, that is coordinated effectively across multiple care sectors. They are in use across the UK although empirical evidence into their effectiveness is poor. This paper presents a protocol of a mixed-methods study, to understand how, and by whom, EPaCCS are being used and whether EPaCCS are enabling Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) to coordinate patients' EOL care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study, carried out within a realist paradigm, to evaluate the impact of an EPaCCS on EOL care as provided by a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in England. This study has two aims: (1) Describe the socio-demographic characteristics of patients who die with an EPaCCS record, their underlying cause of death and place of death and compare these with patients who die without an EPaCCS record. (2) Explore the impact of an EPaCCS on the experience of receiving EOL care for patients and their carers, and understand HCPs' views and experiences of utilising an EPaCCS to coordinate care for their patients. The study will be conducted in five phases: (1) development of the initial programme theory; (2) focus group with CCG stakeholder board; (3) individual interviews with HCPs, patients, current and bereaved carers; (4) retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data on EPaCCS usage and (5) data analysis and synthesis of study findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by National Health Service South West-Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 18/SW/0198). Findings will be published in a wide range of outputs targeted at key audiences.

Barriers to GPs identifying patients at the end-of-life and discussions about their care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at the end-of-life is the first step in care planning and many general practices have Palliative Care Registers. There is evidence that these largely comprise patients with cancer diagnoses, but little is known about the identification process. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers that hinder GPs from identifying and registering patients on Palliative Care Registers. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative approach was undertaken using semi-structured interviews with GPs in South West England. GPs were asked about their experiences of identifying, registering and discussing end-of-life care with patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Most practices had a Palliative Care Register, which were mainly composed of patients with cancer. They reported identifying non-malignant patients at the end-of-life as challenging and were reluctant to include frail or elderly patients due to resource implications. GPs described rarely using prognostication tools to identify patients and conveyed that poor communication between secondary and primary care made prognostication difficult. GPs also detailed challenges around talking to patients about end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative Care Registers are widely used by GPs for patients with malignant diagnoses, but seldom for other patients. The findings from our study suggest that this arises because GPs find prognosticating for patients with non-malignant disease more challenging. GPs would value better communication from secondary care, tools for prognostication and training in speaking with patients at the end-of-life enabling them to better identify non-malignant patients at the end-of-life.