Effectiveness of conservative management versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the prevention of recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease (C-GALL trial): pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the prevention of symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. DESIGN: Parallel group, pragmatic randomised, superiority trial. SETTING: 20 secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 434 adults (>18 years) with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease referred to secondary care, assessed for eligibility between August 2016 and November 2019, and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conservative management or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Conservative management or surgical removal of the gallbladder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary patient outcome was quality of life, measured by area under the curve, over 18 months using the short form 36 (SF-36) bodily pain domain, with higher scores (range 0-100) indicating better quality of life. Other outcomes included costs to the NHS, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Of 2667 patients assessed for eligibility, 434 were randomised: 217 to the conservative management group and 217 to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. By 18 months, 54 (25%) participants in the conservative management arm and 146 (67%) in the cholecystectomy arm had received surgery. The mean SF-36 norm based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the conservative management arm and 50.4 (11.6) in the cholecystectomy arm. The SF-36 bodily pain area under the curve up to 18 months did not differ (mean difference 0.0, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 1.7; P=1.00). Conservative management was less costly (mean difference -£1033, (-$1334; -€1205), 95% credible interval -£1413 to -£632) and QALYs did not differ (mean difference -0.019, 95% credible interval -0.06 to 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term (≤18 months), laparoscopic surgery is no more effective than conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and as such conservative management should be considered as an alternative to surgery. From an NHS perspective, conservative management may be cost effective for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. As costs, complications, and benefits will continue to be incurred in both groups beyond 18 months, future research should focus on longer term follow-up to establish effectiveness and lifetime cost effectiveness and to identify the cohort of patients who should be routinely offered surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN55215960.

Rural and Urban patients' Requirements and Experiences of Out-of-hours medical care after cancer (RUREO): a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how individuals diagnosed with cancer use out-of-hours (OOH) medical services, describe the behavioural determinants of OOH service use and explore whether there are differences between urban and rural dwellers. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted in Northeast Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 2549 individuals diagnosed with cancer in the preceding 12 months identified through the National Health Service Grampian Cancer Care Pathway database. 490 individuals returned the questionnaire (19.2% response rate), 61.8% were urban and 34.9% were rural. OUTCOMES: Outcomes were differences in frequency of medical service use and attitudes towards OOH services between urban and rural participants. Patient experience (qualitative data) was compared. RESULTS: Daytime services were used much more frequently than OOH services-83.3% of participants had never contacted an OOH primary care service in the preceding 12 months but 44.2% had used their daytime general practitioner at least four times. There were no significant differences between urban and rural dwellers in the patterns of OOH or daytime service use, the behavioural determinants of service use or the experiences of OOH services. Rural dwellers were significantly less likely to agree that OOH services were close by and more likely to agree that where they lived made it difficult to access these services. Rural dwellers were no more likely to agree or disagree that distance would affect their decision to contact OOH services. Qualitative results highlighted barriers to accessing OOH services exist for all patients but that long travel distances can be offset by service configuration, travel infrastructure and access to a car. CONCLUSIONS: Urban and rural dwellers have similar beliefs, attitudes towards and patterns of OOH service use. In Northeast Scotland, place of residence is unlikely to be the most important factor in influencing decisions about whether to access OOH medical care.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with observation/conservative management for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones (C-Gall trial).

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease (cholelithiasis) is common. In most people it is asymptomatic and does not require treatment, but in about 20% it can become symptomatic, causing pain and other complications requiring medical attention and/or surgery. A proportion of symptomatic people with uncomplicated gallstone disease do not experience further episodes of pain and, therefore, could be treated conservatively. Moreover, surgery carries risks of perioperative and postoperative complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: C-Gall is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation to assess whether cholecystectomy is cost-effective compared with observation/ conservative management (here after referred to as medical management) at 18 months post-randomisation (with internal pilot). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) bodily pain domain) up to 18 months after randomisation.The primary economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 18 months. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Secondary outcome measures include condition-specific QoL, SF-36 domains, complications, further treatment, persistent symptoms, healthcare resource use, and costs assessed at 18 and 24 months after randomisation. The bodily pain domain of the SF-36 will also be assessed at 24 months after randomisation.A sample size of 430 participants was calculated. Computer-generated 1:1 randomisation was used.The C-Gall Study is currently in follow-up in 20 UK research centres. The first patient was randomised on 1 August 2016, with follow-up to be completed by 30 November 2021. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome, area under the curve (AUC) for the SF-36 bodily pain up to 18 months, will be generated using the Trapezium rule and analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables (recruitment site, sex and age). For the secondary outcome, SF-36 bodily pain, AUC up to 24 months will be analysed in a similar way. Other secondary outcomes will be analysed using generalised linear models with adjustment for minimisation and baseline variables, as appropriate. Statistical significance will be at the two-sided 5% level with corresponding CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee approved this study (16/NS/0053). The dissemination plans include Health Technology Assessment monograph, international scientific meetings and publications in high-impact, open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55215960; pre-results.

Reconceptualising Rural Cancer Inequalities: Time for a New Research Agenda.

Evidence has shown for over 20 years that patients residing in rural areas face poorer outcomes for cancer. The inequalities in survival that rural cancer patients face are observed throughout the developed world, yet this issue remains under-examined and unexplained. There is evidence to suggest that rural patients are more likely to be diagnosed as a result of an emergency presentation and that rural patients may take longer to seek help for symptoms. However, research to date has been predominantly epidemiological, providing us with an understanding of what is occurring in these populations, yet failing to explain why. In this paper we outline the problems inherent in current research approaches to rural cancer inequalities, namely how 'cancer symptoms' are conceived of and examined, and the propensity towards a reductionist approach to rural environments and populations, which fails to account for their heterogeneity. We advocate for a revised rural cancer inequalities research agenda, built upon in-depth, community-based examinations of rural patients' experiences across the cancer pathway, which takes into account both the micro and macro factors which exert influence on these experiences, in order to develop meaningful interventions to improve cancer outcomes for rural populations.

Contribution of primary care organisation and specialist care provider to variation in GP referrals for suspected cancer: ecological analysis of national data.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how much of the variation between general practices in referral rates and cancer detection rates is attributable to local health services rather than the practices or their populations. DESIGN: Ecological analysis of national data on fast-track referrals for suspected cancer from general practices. Data were analysed at the levels of general practice, primary care organisation (Clinical Commissioning Group) and secondary care provider (Acute Hospital Trust) level. Analysis of variation in detection rate was by multilevel linear and Poisson regression. SETTING: 6379 group practices with data relating to more than 50 cancer cases diagnosed over the 5 years from 2013 to 2017. OUTCOMES: Proportion of observed variation attributable to primary and secondary care organisations in standardised fast-track referral rate and in cancer detection rate before and after adjustment for practice characteristics. RESULTS: Primary care organisation accounted for 21% of the variation between general practices in the standardised fast-track referral rate and 42% of the unadjusted variation in cancer detection rate. After adjusting for standardised fast-track referral rate, primary care organisation accounted for 31% of the variation in cancer detection rate (compared with 18% accounted for by practice characteristics). In areas where a hospital trust was the main provider for multiple primary care organisations, hospital trusts accounted for the majority of the variation attributable to local health services (between 63% and 69%). CONCLUSION: This is the first large-scale finding that a substantial proportion of the variation between general practitioner practices in referrals is attributable to their local healthcare systems. Efforts to reduce variation need to focus not just on individual practices but on local diagnostic service provision and culture at the interface of primary and secondary care.

How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: National European cancer survival rates vary widely. Prolonged diagnostic intervals are thought to be a key factor in explaining these variations. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) frequently play a crucial role during initial cancer diagnosis; their knowledge could be used to improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought the views of PCPs from across Europe on how they thought the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved. DESIGN: In an online survey, a final open-ended question asked PCPs how they thought the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. SETTING: A primary care study, with participating centres in 20 European countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1352 PCPs answered the final survey question, with a median of 48 per country. RESULTS: The main themes identified were: patient-related factors, including health education; care provider-related factors, including continuing medical education; improving communication and interprofessional partnership, particularly between primary and secondary care; factors relating to health system organisation and policies, including improving access to healthcare; easier primary care access to diagnostic tests; and use of information technology. Re-allocation of funding to support timely diagnosis was seen as an issue affecting all of these. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, health systems need to facilitate earlier patient presentation through education and better access to care, have well-educated clinicians with good access to investigations and better information technology, and adequate primary care cancer diagnostic pathway funding.

Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners' referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer survival and stage of disease at diagnosis and treatment vary widely across Europe. These differences may be partly due to variations in access to investigations and specialists. However, evidence to explain how different national health systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs') referral decisions is lacking.This study analyses health system factors potentially influencing PCPs' referral decision-making when consulting with patients who may have cancer, and how these vary between European countries. DESIGN: Based on a content-validity consensus, a list of 45 items relating to a PCP's decisions to refer patients with potential cancer symptoms for further investigation was reduced to 20 items. An online questionnaire with the 20 items was answered by PCPs on a five-point Likert scale, indicating how much each item affected their own decision-making in patients that could have cancer. An exploratory factor analysis identified the factors underlying PCPs' referral decision-making. SETTING: A primary care study; 25 participating centres in 20 European countries. PARTICIPANTS: 1830 PCPs completed the survey. The median response rate for participating centres was 20.7%. OUTCOME MEASURES: The factors derived from items related to PCPs' referral decision-making. Mean factor scores were produced for each country, allowing comparisons. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified five underlying factors: PCPs' ability to refer; degree of direct patient access to secondary care; PCPs' perceptions of being under pressure; expectations of PCPs' role; and extent to which PCPs believe that quality comes before cost in their health systems. These accounted for 47.4% of the observed variance between individual responses. CONCLUSIONS: Five healthcare system factors influencing PCPs' referral decision-making in 20 European countries were identified. The factors varied considerably between European countries. Knowledge of these factors could assist development of health service policies to produce better cancer outcomes, and inform future research to compare national cancer diagnostic pathways and outcomes.

What are the current challenges of managing cancer pain and could digital technologies help?

OBJECTIVES: Pain remains a problem for people with cancer despite effective treatments being available. We aimed to explore current pain management strategies used by patients, caregivers and professionals and to investigate opportunities for digital technologies to enhance cancer pain management. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. Patients with cancer pain, their caregivers and health professionals from Northeast Scotland were recruited from a purposive sample of general practices. Professionals were recruited from regional networks. RESULTS: Fifty one participants took part in 33 interviews (eight patients alone, six patient/caregiver dyads and 19 professionals) and two focus groups (12 professionals). Living with cancer was hard work for patients and caregivers and comparable to a 'full-time job'. Patients had personal goals which involved controlling pain intensity and balancing this with analgesic use, side effects, overall symptom burden and social/physical activities.Digital technologies were embraced by most patients, and made living life with advanced cancer easier and richer (eg, video calls with family). Technology was underutilised for pain and symptom management. There were suggestions that technology could support self-monitoring and communicating problems to professionals, but patients and professionals were concerned about technological monitoring adding to the work of managing illness. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer pain management takes place in the context of multiple, sometimes competing personal goals. It is possible that technology could be used to help patients share individual symptom experiences and goals, thus enhancing tailored care. The challenge is for digital solutions to add value without adding undue burden.

Is initial excision of cutaneous melanoma by General Practitioners (GPs) dangerous? Comparing patient outcomes following excision of melanoma by GPs or in hospital using national datasets and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Melanomas are initially excised in primary care, and rates vary internationally. Until now, there has been no strong evidence one way or the other that excising melanomas in primary care is safe or unsafe. European guidelines make no recommendations, and the United Kingdom (UK) melanoma guidelines require all suspicious skin lesions to be initially treated in secondary care based on an expert consensus, which lacks supporting evidence, that primary care excision represents substandard care. Despite this, studies have found that up to 20% of melanomas in the UK are excised by general practitioners (GPs). Patients receiving primary care melanoma excision may fear that their care is substandard and their long-term survival threatened, neither of which may be justified. METHODS: Scottish cancer registry data from 9367 people diagnosed with melanoma in Scotland between 2005 and 2013 were linked to pathology records, hospital data and death records. A Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, adjusting for key confounders, explored the association between morbidity and mortality and setting of primary melanoma excision (primary versus secondary care). A pooled estimate of the relative hazard of death of having a melanoma excised in primary versus secondary care including 7116 patients from a similar Irish study was also performed. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) of death from melanoma for those having primary care excision was 0.82 (0.61-1.10). Those receiving primary care excision had a median (IQR) of 8 (3-14) out-patient attendances compared to 10 (4-17) for the secondary care group with an adjusted relative risk (RR) (95% CI) of 0.98 (0.96-1.01). Both groups had a median of 1 (0-2) hospital admissions with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.05 (0.98-1.13). In the meta-analysis, with primary care as the reference, the pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR, 95% CI) was 1.26 (1.07-1.50) indicating a significantly higher all-cause mortality among those with excision in secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the Scottish and pooled analyses suggest that those receiving an initial excision for melanoma in primary care do not have poorer survival or increased morbidity compared to those being initially treated in secondary care. A randomised controlled trial to inform a greater role for GPs in the initial excision of melanoma is justified in the light of these results.

Knowledge or noise? Making sense of General Practitioners' and Consultant use of 2-week-wait referrals for suspected cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer is the goal of the 2-week-wait referral pathway (2WW). Variation exists between General Practice use of 2WW and rates of consultant reprioritisation of GP referral from routine to 2WW (Consultant Upgrade). We investigated variation in General Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral activity. METHODS: Data from 185 000 referrals and 29 000 cancers recorded between 2011 and 2013 from the Northern Ireland Cancer Waiting Time database (CaPPS) were analysed to ascertain standardised referral rate ratios, detection rate (DR) (=sensitivity) and conversion rate (CR) (=positive predictive value) for Practice 2WW referrals and Consultant Upgrade 2WW. Metrics were compared using Spearman's rank correlation co-efficients. RESULTS: There was consistency in Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral rates over time, though not for annual DR (Spearman's ρ<0.37) or CR (Spearman's ρ<0.26). Practice 2WW referral rates correlated negatively with CR and positively with DR while correlations between DR and CR were restricted to single-year comparisons in Practice 2WW. In Consultant Upgrade, 2WW CR and DR were strongly correlated but only when the same cancers were included in both rates. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest 'random case mix' explains previously reported associations between CR and DR with more 'hard to detect' cancers in some Practices than in others in a given year corresponding to lower DR and CR. Use of Practice and Consultant Upgrade 2WW referral metrics to gauge General Practice performance may be misleading.

Resilience of primary healthcare professionals working in challenging environments: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: The modern primary healthcare workforce needs to be resilient. Early research framed professional resilience as avoiding 'burnout'; however, more recent literature has introduced the concept of positive adaptation to professional challenges, which results in individuals thriving in their role. AIM: To explore what primary health professionals working in challenging environments consider to be characteristics of resilience and what promotes or challenges professional resilience. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative focus group in north east Scotland. METHOD: Five focus groups were held with 20 health professionals (six GPs, nine nurses, four pharmacists, and a practice manager) based in rural or deprived city areas in the north east of Scotland. Inductive thematic analysis identified emerging themes. RESULTS: Personal resilience characteristics identified were optimism, flexibility and adaptability, initiative, tolerance, organisational skills, being a team worker, keeping within professional boundaries, assertiveness, humour, and a sense of self-worth. Workplace challenges were workload, information overload, time pressures, poor communication, challenging patients, and environmental factors (rural location). Promoters of professional resilience were strong management support, teamwork, workplace buffers, and social factors such as friends, family, and leisure activities. CONCLUSION: A model of health professional resilience is proposed that concurs with existing literature but adds the concept of personal traits being synergistic with workplace features and social networks. These facilitate adaptability and enable individual health professionals to cope with adversity that is inevitably part of the everyday experience of those working in challenging healthcare environments.

Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer receive regular structured follow up after initial treatment, usually by a specialist in a cancer centre. Increasing numbers of cancer survivors prompts interest in alternative structured follow-up models. There is worldwide evidence of increasing interest in delivering cancer follow-up using technology. This review sough evidence supporting the use of technology in cancer follow-up from good quality randomised controlled trials. METHOD: A search strategy was developed to identify randomised controlled trials and reviews of randomised trials of interventions delivering some aspect of structured cancer follow-up using new technologies. Databases searched were: All EBM Reviews; Embase; Medline (No Revisions); Medline (Non-Indexed Citations), and CAB Abstracts. Included articles were published in English between 2000 and 2014. Key words were generated by the research question. Papers were read independently and appraised using a standardised checklist by two researchers, with differences being resolved by consensus [J Epidemiol Community Health, 52:377-384, 1998]. Information was collected on the purpose, process, results and limitations of each study. All outcomes were considered, but particular attention paid to areas under consideration in the review question. RESULTS: The search strategy generated 22879 titles. Following removal of duplicates and abstract review 17 full papers pertaining to 13 randomised controlled studies were reviewed. Studies varied in technologies used and the elements of follow-up delivered, length of follow-up, tumour type and numbers participating. Most studies employed only standard telephone follow-up. Most studies involved women with breast cancer and included telephone follow-up. Together the results suggest that interventions comprising technology had not compromised patient satisfaction or safety, as measured by symptoms, health related quality of life or psychological distress. There was insufficient evidence to comment on the cost effectiveness of technological cancer follow-up interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Modern technology could deliver cancer follow-up that is acceptable and safe. More research is required to develop cancer follow-up systems which exploit modern technology, which should be assessed using randomised trials, with consistent outcomes, so that evidence on the acceptability, safety, cost effectiveness and impact in quality of life of technological follow-up can accumulate and be made available to patients, professionals and policy makers.

Use of a structured palliative care summary in patients with established cancer is associated with reduced hospital admissions by out-of-hours general practitioners in Grampian.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative care summaries are used by general practices to provide structured anticipatory care information to those providing care during the out-of-hours period. We hypothesised that the availability of a palliative care summary for individuals with established cancer would influence emergency hospital admission during the out-of-hours period. METHODS: Each consultation with Grampian Medical Emergency Department (GMED) is recorded on the ADASTRA software system and the nature of the consultation is Read coded. We retrospectively reviewed consultations between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011 which had been coded as 'neoplasm' or 'terminal care'. The availability of a palliative care summary on ADASTRA and admission status were recorded. χ(2) Test of association was performed. Binary logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis exploring the effect of a palliative care summary on admission, while adjusting for important confounders. RESULTS: 401 patients with established cancer were identified who had presented to GMED in 2011. 35.7% had a palliative care summary available on ADASTRA. Of the 401 contacts, 100 patients were admitted to hospital. Not having a palliative care summary made admission significantly more likely; χ(2)=12.480, p=0.001. (OR 2.425, 95% CI 1.412 to 4.165). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of a structured palliative care plan can aid decision making in the out-of-hours period and prevent unplanned hospital admissions.

Toward shared care for people with cancer: developing the model with patients and GPs.

BACKGROUND: The number of people surviving cancer for extended periods is increasing. Consequently, due to workload and quality issues, there is considerable interest in alternatives to traditional secondary care-led cancer follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of potential recipients of shared follow-up of cancer. To conduct a modelling exercise for shared follow-up and to explore the opinions and experiences of both the patients and GPs involved. METHODS: Semi-structured audio-taped telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 patients with a range of cancers currently attending for structured follow-up in secondary care. Six GPs and five patients (four with melanoma and one with stable metastatic colorectal cancer) took part in a shared follow-up modelling exercise. During the modelling exercise, the GPs attended 4 review meetings, which included brief training seminars, and at the conclusion 10 individuals took part in semi-structured audio-taped telephone or face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Many rural patients, and some urban patients, would appreciate follow-up being available nearer to home with the associated benefits of time saved and easier parking and continuity of care. Patients have concerns related to the level of extra training received by the GP and loss of contact with their consultant. GPs have concerns about gaining and maintaining the clinical skills needed to conduct follow-up, especially if the numbers of patients seen are small. They also have concerns about lack of support from other GPs, and some administrative and organizational issues. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients would be willing to have GPs share their cancer follow-up with the caveat that they had received extra training and were appropriately supported by secondary care specialists. Patients attending shared care clinics appreciated a local service and longer appointment times. GPs stress the importance of maintaining their own clinical skills and reliable clinical and administrative support from secondary care.

Running nurse-led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: qualitative study of health professionals' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A randomised trial of nurse-led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease resulted in improved secondary prevention and significantly lowered all-cause mortality at 4-year follow-up. This qualitative trial was conducted to explore the experience of health professionals that had been involved in running the clinics. AIM: To identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease within primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured audiotaped telephone interviews with GPs and nurses involved in running clinics. SETTING: A stratified, random sample of 19 urban, suburban, and rural general practices in north-east Scotland. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 19 GPs and 17 practice-based nurses involved in running nurse-led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Eight practices had run clinics continuously and 11 had stopped, with eight subsequently restarting. Participants accounted for these patterns by referring to advantages and disadvantages of the clinics in four areas: patient care, development of nursing skills, team working, and infrastructure. Most practitioners perceived benefits for patients from attending secondary prevention clinics, but some, from small rural practices, thought they were unnecessary. The extended role for nurses was welcomed, but was dependent on motivated staff, appropriate training and support. Clinics relied on, and could enhance, team working, however, some doctors were wary of delegating. With regard to infrastructure, staff shortages (especially nurses) and accommodation were as problematic as lack of funds. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led secondary prevention clinics were viewed positively by most healthcare professionals that had been involved in running them, but barriers to their implementation had led most to stop running them at some point. Lack of space and staff shortages are likely to remain ongoing problems, but improvements in funding training and communication within practices could help clinics to be put into practice and sustained.

Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease based on four years' follow up of a randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 19 general practices in north east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 1343 patients (673 in intervention group and 670 in control group, as originally randomised) aged under 80 years with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. INTERVENTION: Nurse led clinics to promote medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of clinics; overall costs to health service; and cost per life year and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental gain in intervention group compared with control group. RESULTS: The cost of the intervention (clinics and drugs) was 136 pounds sterling (254 dollars; 195 euros) per patient higher (1998-9 prices) in the intervention group, but the difference in other NHS costs, although lower for the intervention group, was not statistically significant. Overall, 28 fewer deaths occurred in the intervention group leading to a gain in mean life years per patient of 0.110 and of 0.124 QALYs. The incremental cost per life year saved was 1236 pounds sterling and that per QALY was 1097 pounds sterling. CONCLUSION: Nurse led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care seem to be cost effective compared with most interventions in health care, with the main gains in life years saved.