Real-world evidence research in metastatic colorectal cancer: raising awareness of the need for patient contributions.

Real-world evidence (RWE) research helps determine whether outcomes observed in clinical trials happen in real-life clinical practice. RWE research may help patients receive more appropriate treatment, closer to their needs and wishes. RWE for metastatic colorectal cancer is currently limited. The PROMETCO RWE study is an important example of an ongoing initiative that focuses on patient-reported outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients play an active role throughout the RWE research process, including study design, participation and results dissemination. This involvement can encourage greater patient empowerment through active engagement, potentially resulting in various benefits that can lead to improved clinical outcomes. Greater patient engagement can increase involvement in RWE, helping more patients to access the benefits of RWE research. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03935763 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Real-world evidence (RWE) research provides information that is essential to improving medical treatment. When it comes to metastatic colorectal cancer ­ cancer that has spread to other parts of the body ­ only a few RWE studies have been conducted. RWE studies, such as the ongoing PROMETCO study in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, differ from clinical trials in that they include a wider range of people with fewer restrictions on type of treatments received. They can also place more attention to the patients' own opinions. By joining RWE studies, patients are likely to become more interested in their disease and take a more active role in their treatment. In the end, this can help to improve their quality of life and possibly improve the outcomes of their treatment. Doctors need to work in partnership with patients to increase participation in RWE studies.

Best practice skin antisepsis for insertion of peripheral catheters.

This article discusses the importance of effective skin antisepsis prior to the insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) and how best clinical practice is promoted by application of an appropriate method of skin disinfection integrated effectively with a proprietary aseptic non touch technique, or other standard aseptic technique. Historically under-reported, incidence of infection and risk to patients from PIVCs is now increasingly being recognised, with new research and evidence raising concern and helping to drive new clinical guidance and improvement. The risks posed by PIVCs are particularly significant given increasing PIVC dwell times, due to cannula removal now being determined by new guidance for clinical indication, rather than predefined time frames. Clinical 'best practice' is considered in context of the evidence base, importantly including availability and access to appropriate skin antisepsis products. In the UK, and other countries, ChloraPrep is the only skin antisepsis applicator licensed as a drug to disinfect skin and help prevent infections before invasive medical procedures, such as injections, blood sampling, insertion of PIVCs and minor or major surgery.

High impact actions: fighting infection.

In this article, Aseptic Non-Touch Technique clinical director Stephen Rowley and Simon Clare, who are both cancer nurses, explain the importance of aseptic technique, Alison Ruffell, a sister in critical care, describes a local initiative to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia and, in conclusion, Jeanette Beer of the National Patient Safety Agency focuses on a national programme to reduce infections associated with central venous catheters.