Implementing patient-centred cancer care: using experience-based co-design to improve patient experience in breast and lung cancer services.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper was to briefly describe how the experience-based co-design (EBCD) approach was used to identify and implement improvements in the experiences of breast and lung cancer patients before (1) comparing the issues identified as shaping patient experiences in the different tumour groups and (2) exploring participants' reflections on the value and key characteristics of this approach to improving patient experiences. METHODS: Fieldwork involved 36 filmed narrative patient interviews, 219 h of ethnographic observation, 63 staff interviews and a facilitated co-design change process involving patient and staff interviewees over a 12-month period. Four of the staff and five patients were interviewed about their views on the value of the approach and its key characteristics. The project setting was a large, inner-city cancer centre in England. RESULTS: Patients from both tumour groups generally identified similar issues (or 'touchpoints') that shaped their experience of care, although breast cancer patients identified a need for better information about side effects of treatment and end of treatment whereas lung cancer patients expressed a need for more information post-surgery. Although the issues were broadly similar, the particular improvement priorities patients and staff chose to work on together were tumour specific. Interviewees highlighted four characteristics of the EBCD approach as being key to its successful implementation: patient involvement, patient responsibility and empowerment, a sense of community, and a close connection between their experiences and the subsequent improvement priorities. CONCLUSION: EBCD positions patients as active partners with staff in quality improvement. Breast and lung cancer patients identified similar touchpoints in their experiences, but these were translated into different improvement priorities for each tumour type. This is an important consideration when developing patient-centred cancer services across different tumour types.

Using patients' experiences to identify priorities for quality improvement in breast cancer care: patient narratives, surveys or both?

BACKGROUND: Patients' experiences have become central to assessing the performance of healthcare systems worldwide and are increasingly being used to inform quality improvement processes. This paper explores the relative value of surveys and detailed patient narratives in identifying priorities for improving breast cancer services as part of a quality improvement process. METHODS: One dataset was collected using a narrative interview approach, (n = 13) and the other using a postal survey (n = 82). Datasets were analyzed separately and then compared to determine whether similar priorities for improving patient experiences were identified. RESULTS: There were both similarities and differences in the improvement priorities arising from each approach. Day surgery was specifically identified as a priority in the narrative dataset but included in the survey recommendations only as part of a broader priority around improving inpatient experience. Both datasets identified appointment systems, patients spending enough time with staff, information about treatment and side effects and more information at the end of treatment as priorities. The specific priorities identified by the narrative interviews commonly related to 'relational' aspects of patient experience. Those identified by the survey typically related to more 'functional' aspects and were not always sufficiently detailed to identify specific improvement actions. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that whilst local survey data may act as a screening tool to identify potential problems within the breast cancer service, they do not always provide sufficient detail of what to do to improve that service. These findings may have wider applicability in other services. We recommend using an initial preliminary survey, with better use of survey open comments, followed by an in-depth qualitative analysis to help deliver improvements to relational and functional aspects of patient experience.

Breast cancer outcomes following a national initiative in Ireland to restructure delivery of services for symptomatic disease.

BACKGROUND: A national initiative in Ireland in 2000 defined 13 designated Units to provide care for symptomatic breast cancer, and resources, including an ability to develop audit programmes, were provided. In the absence of a national audit of breast cancer outcomes, the aim of this study is to provide a detailed report of one Unit's subsequent experience, in particular comparing process and outcome data with international norms and benchmarks, and to infer on the likely impact of the national initiative. METHODS: A 5-year prospective audit of patients presenting to the Symptomatic Breast Clinic from 2001 to 2005 was conducted. All cancer diagnoses were discussed at the Breast Multidisciplinary Conference, and all clinicopathological treatment details and follow-up information were entered by a full-time data manager. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Eight hundred and thirty-nine patients were diagnosed through the clinic, 18 (2%) Stage 0, 169 (20%) Stage I, 380 (45%) Stage II, 142 (17%) Stage III, and 123 (15%) Stage IV. At a median follow-up of 35 months the overall 5-year survival was 71%, with 100%, 91%, 83%, 72%, and 11% survival for Stages 0-IV, respectively, and disease-specific survival of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The process and outcome data are consistent with international benchmarks. These data from one designated centre support the national initiatives in Ireland to restructure breast services.

Development and progress of Ireland's biobank network: Ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI), standardized documentation, sample and data release, and international perspective.

Biobank Ireland Trust (BIT) was established in 2004 to promote and develop an Irish biobank network to benefit patients, researchers, industry, and the economy. The network commenced in 2008 with two hospital biobanks and currently consists of biobanks in the four main cancer hospitals in Ireland. The St. James's Hospital (SJH) Biobank coordinates the network. Procedures, based on ISBER and NCI guidelines, are standardized across the network. Policies and documents-Patient Consent Policy, Patient Information Sheet, Biobank Consent Form, Sample and Data Access Policy (SAP), and Sample Application Form have been agreed upon (after robust discussion) for use in each hospital. An optimum sequence for document preparation and submission for review is outlined. Once consensus is reached among the participating biobanks, the SJH biobank liaises with the Research and Ethics Committees, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, The National Cancer Registry (NCR), patient advocate groups, researchers, and other stakeholders. The NCR provides de-identified data from its database for researchers via unique biobank codes. ELSI issues discussed include the introduction of prospective consent across the network and the return of significant research results to patients. Only 4 of 363 patients opted to be re-contacted and re-consented on each occasion that their samples are included in a new project. It was decided, after multidisciplinary discussion, that results will not be returned to patients. The SAP is modeled on those of several international networks. Biobank Ireland is affiliated with international biobanking groups-Marble Arch International Working Group, ISBER, and ESBB. The Irish government continues to deliberate on how to fund and implement biobanking nationally. Meanwhile BIT uses every opportunity to promote awareness of the benefits of biobanking in events and in the media.

Maintaining Breast Cancer Specimen Integrity and Individual or Simultaneous Extraction of Quality DNA, RNA, and Proteins from Allprotect-Stabilized and Nonstabilized Tissue Samples.

The Saint James's Hospital Biobank was established in 2008, to develop a high-quality breast tissue BioResource, as a part of the breast cancer clinical care pathway. The aims of this work were: (1) to ascertain the quality of RNA, DNA, and protein in biobanked carcinomas and normal breast tissues, (2) to assess the efficacy of AllPrep(®) (Qiagen) in isolating RNA, DNA, and protein simultaneously, (3) to compare AllPrep with RNEasy(®) and QIAamp(®) (both Qiagen), and (4) to examine the effectiveness of Allprotect(®) (Qiagen), a new tissue stabilization medium in preserving DNA, RNA, and proteins. One hundred eleven frozen samples of carcinoma and normal breast tissue were analyzed. Tumor and normal tissue morphology were confirmed by frozen sections. Tissue type, tissue treatment (Allprotect vs. no Allprotect), extraction kit, and nucleic acid quantification were analyzed by utilizing a 4 factorial design (SPSS PASW 18 Statistics Software(®)). QIAamp (DNA isolation), AllPrep (DNA, RNA, and Protein isolation), and RNeasy (RNA isolation) kits were assessed and compared. Mean DNA yield and A(260/280) values using QIAamp were 33.2 ng/µL and 1.86, respectively, and using AllPrep were 23.2 ng/µL and 1.94. Mean RNA yield and RNA Integrity Number (RIN) values with RNeasy were 73.4 ng/µL and 8.16, respectively, and with AllPrep were 74.8 ng/µL and 7.92. Allprotect-treated tissues produced higher RIN values of borderline significance (P=0.055). No discernible loss of RNA stability was detected after 6 h incubation of stabilized or nonstabilized tissues at room temperature or 4°C or in 9 freeze-thaw cycles. Allprotect requires further detailed evaluation, but we consider AllPrep to be an excellent option for the simultaneous extraction of RNA, DNA, and protein from tumor and normal breast tissues. The essential presampling procedures that maintain the diagnostic integrity of pathology specimens do not appear to compromise the quality of molecular isolates.