Evaluation of an acute trust Domestic Abuse Coordinator role: Impact findings and a budget impact model.

Domestic Abuse Coordinators (DACs) work strategically across National Health Service (NHS) hospital and other off-site clinical settings to support clinical staff in domestic abuse enquiry and response, and to co-lead the development and implementation of effective clinical policies and procedures for the management of domestic abuse and the support of survivors. Drawing on data from a large NHS acute trust in central London, we analyse the impact of the DAC role in increasing the rate of referrals of high-risk domestic abuse cases, and generate plausible estimates of the budget impact of the DAC role in respect of costs accrued to NHS trusts. Using eight quarters of clinical data and an interrupted time series design, we find that evidence that implementation of a DAC role is linked with an increase in the rate of high-risk referrals of between 18% and 21% per quarter, indicating improved responses to victim-survivors at highest risk of imminent harm. Under a range of reasonable assumptions, initiation of the DAC role is shown to be cost-saving to an employing acute trust. Future work should seek to quantify the direct impacts to survivor health and wellbeing of the implementation of the DAC role.

Acceptability of routine domestic abuse enquiry within sexual health services.

BACKGROUND: Our sexual health services (SHS) introduced routine domestic abuse (DA) enquiry in April 2018 following targeted staff training. A survey was undertaken to ascertain attitudes towards the initiative. METHODS: Between October 2019 and March 2020, patients were invited to respond to an anonymous questionnaire by SMS. Clinical staff were emailed a separate survey. RESULTS: The patient response rate was 40% (226/562): 72% (161/226) female, 80% (179/226) heterosexual, 19% (42) LGBT, 47% (106) aged 25-34 and 25% (57) aged 18-24. Almost all (97%, 220) recalled routine enquiry at their clinic appointment; 91% (206) felt comfortable when asked, and 95% (214) found this acceptable. Fifty-one staff responded (36% response rate), 67% (34) female, 55% (28) heterosexual, 35% (18) LGBT. 43% (22) were nurses, 31% (16) doctors, 12% (6) health advisers and 8% (4) healthcare assistants. The majority of staff 96% (49) were confident with conducting routine enquiry, 92% (47) agreed patients found it acceptable; 92% (47) felt routine enquiry was appropriate and 92% (47) had received targeted training. CONCLUSION: Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of routine DA enquiry within SHS, and this initiative could be easily adapted in other specialties alongside staff training.

Critical Assessment in Routine Clinical Practice of Liquid Biopsy for EGFR Status Testing in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Laboratory Experience (LPCE, Nice, France).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of liquid biopsy using PCR-based assays into routine practice has had a strong impact on the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and is now commonly used for routine testing of EGFR mutations in certain clinical settings. To assess whether the claimed benefits of PCR-based assays hold true in daily practice at a multicenter clinical institution, we assessed how treatment decisions are affected by PCR-based assays for the analysis of EGFR mutations from plasma samples in a centralized laboratory (LPCE, Nice, France). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 345 samples were analyzed using the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and 103 using the Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit over 3 years (395 samples from 324 patients). Eleven plasma samples were validated independently using Cobas at 3 institutions, and 130 samples were analyzed using Stilla digital PCR. Clinical data were collected for 175 (54%) of 324 patients. RESULTS: Cobas was superior to the Therascreen assay and demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Digital PCR showed only 48%, 83%, and 58% concordance with Cobas for exon 19 deletions, L858R mutations, and T790M mutations, respectively. Liquid biopsies helped inform and change treatment when resistance occurred and enabled the detection of EGFR mutations in patients when biopsy tissue results were unavailable. CONCLUSION: PCR-based assays are a fast and convenient test, allowing the detection of primary and secondary EGFR mutations from plasma. Cobas proved to be a reliable test, whereas digital PCR produced too many inconclusive results to be currently recommended as a principal testing device.

Use of the Ion PGM and the GeneReader NGS Systems in Daily Routine Practice for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients: A Practical Point of View Reporting a Comparative Study and Assessment of 90 Patients.

Background: With the integration of various targeted therapies into the clinical management of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become the technology of choice and has led to an increase in simultaneously interrogated genes. However, the broader adoption of NGS for routine clinical practice is still hampered by sophisticated workflows, complex bioinformatics analysis and medical interpretation. Therefore, the performance of the novel QIAGEN GeneReader NGS system was compared to an in-house ISO-15189 certified Ion PGM NGS platform. Methods: Clinical samples from 90 patients (60 Retrospectively and 30 Prospectively) with lung adenocarcinoma were sequenced with both systems. Mutations were analyzed and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, ALK, PIK3CA and ERBB2 genes were compared and sampling time and suitability for clinical testing were assessed. Results: Both sequencing systems showed perfect concordance for the overlapping genes. Correlation of allele frequency was r² = 0.93 for the retrospective patients and r² = 0.81 for the prospective patients. Hands-on time and total run time were shorter using the PGM system, while the GeneReader platform provided good traceability and up-to-date interpretation of the results. Conclusion: We demonstrated the suitability of the GeneReader NGS system in routine practice in a clinical pathology laboratory setting.