Cancer patients' experiences with urgent referrals to cancer patient pathways.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore whether cancer patients urgently referred to a cancer patient pathway (CPP) (CPP referred) by a general practitioner report experiences of pre-diagnosis cancer care differently than patients not referred to a CPP (non-CPP referred). METHODS: Data were collected from cross-sectional questionnaire surveys among cancer patients and their GPs and linked to National registries. Poisson regression was used to generate adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) to compare reported experiences. RESULTS: The study included 2,256 individuals. CPP referred patients reported more positive overall experiences of the pre-diagnosis phase (p < 0.001). Overall, CPP referred patients were 21% more likely than non-CPP referred patients to report a positive experience after adjustment for case-mix, comorbidity, disposable household income and educational level (PR = 1.21 [95% CI: 1.11-1.30]). The difference decreased to 14% when adjusted for Quality Deviations (PR = 1.14 [95% CI: 1.06-1.23]) and to 11% when adjusted for diagnostic interval (PR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.02-1.20]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CPP referred cancer patients have better experiences of pre-diagnosis cancer care compared to non-CPP referred patients. A substantial part of the difference could be attributed to shorter diagnostic intervals and/or the absence of quality deviations among CPP patients, which reveals the potential for generally improving cancer patients' experiences by seamless and optimised diagnostic pathways.

Uncertain added value of Global Trigger Tool for monitoring of patient safety in cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Monitoring patient safety is a challenging task. The lack of a golden standard has contributed to the recommendation and introduction of several methods. In 2000 the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) was established to monitor the clinical management of lung cancer. In 2008 the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was recommended in Denmark as a tool for the monitoring of patient safety. Ideally, the recommendation of a new tool should be preceded by a critical assessment of its added value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on complications related to lung cancer surgery from the Department of Cardiothoragic Surgery at Odense University Hospital were collected using the DLCR and the GTT in 2008. The capacity of these two methods to identify complications is compared and discussed. RESULTS: A total of 59 complications were registered in the DLCR, while 58 complications were registered using the GTT. The two methods were equally good at identifying complications, but the DLCR seemed to be borderline significantly better at detecting arrhythmia, while the GTT was significantly better at detecting "other events". CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the adverse events identified with the GTT were complications which were also registered by type in the DLCR. The two methods were almost equally good at identifying specific types of complications, but the GTT identified more "other events". The majority of these events were well-known to clinicians. The comparison illustrates why the implementation of new methods should be preceded by critical assessment. In this case, it is crucial to assess whether the current method should be modified by the addition of more patient safety indicators rather than by introducing a new method that partly duplicates existing data.

Patient Involvement in Evaluation of Safety in Oral Antineoplastic Treatment: A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Patients and Health Care Professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To identify risks associated with delivery of treatment with oral antineoplastic agents in an outpatient setting and to evaluate additional value and feasibility of engaging patients in a proactive risk analysis. METHODS: We conducted 2 separate but parallel failure mode and effects analyses (FMEAs) among patients and health care professionals (HCPs) at a clinical oncology department in Denmark. Comparative analyses were performed using the FMEA process maps and risk priority numbers (RPNs) as main outcome measures. The FMEAs were augmented by semistructured interviews with HCPs and patients on acceptability and feasibility of FMEAs analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs found failures in information regarding treatment (cause, aim, and plan) to be of high risk. Also, HCPs found failures in checking for potential interactions to be of high risk. HCPs focused on the in-hospitals procedures, whereas patients identified risks related to both the hospital and the home setting. Both HCPs and patients found participation in the FMEA process meaningful but found the use of RPNs difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement in proactive risk analysis using FMEA is acceptable, meaningful, and feasible, with patients providing a different perspective on the risks associated with oral antineoplastic treatment compared with HCPs.

A nationwide study of the quality of surgical guidelines and written patient information.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) support enhanced post-operative recovery and decrease morbidity. In addition, patient information leaflets (PILs) are associated with enhanced overall outcomes and improved patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the quality of CPGs and PILs in cancer surgery departments undertaking pulmonary lobectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, whipples, colorectal and ovarian surgery. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study within 44 surgical departments in six cancer subspecialties: lung (n = 4), kidney (n = 9), bladder (n = 5), pancreas (n = 4), colorectal (n = 18) and ovarian (n = 4). Local CPGs were assessed according to nine key elements, i.e. discharge criteria and plans for mobilisation, pain management, nutrition, fluid, nausea and vomiting, antibiotics, bowel movements and urinary drainage. The PILs were evaluated using the DISCERN tool. RESULTS: All departments had CPGs and PILs. Overall, 43% of the departments incorporated all nine key elements in the CPGs. Yet, a third of the CPGs lacked well-defined discharge criteria, and half of the PILs were of poor/very poor quality (48%); the remainder were fair (43%) or good (10%). CONCLUSIONS: CPGs and PILs are highly available in Danish departments that perform cancer surgery. However, this study revealed that local CPGs lacked discharge criteria, and the majority of the PILs were considered of poor quality, suggesting that post-operative management after cancer surgery is of varying quality. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Regional variation in surgery for pancreatic cancer in Denmark 2011-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer carries a high risk of both morbidity and mortality. Even so, it remains the best curative treatment option. In Denmark, pancreatic surgery has been extensively centralised since the millennium, but the effect of this centralisation on patient outcome has not been evaluated. This study describes regional variation within pancreatic surgery on a malignant indication, focusing on production volume, length of stay, readmission rates and mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent surgical treatment in Denmark from 2011 to 2015. We obtained data from the Danish National Patient Registry and the National Pathology Data Bank on length of stay, transfers, mortality (both short and long term), age, co-morbidity, and disease stage. RESULTS: Four hospital units performed a total of 691 surgical procedures (476 pancreaticoduodenectomies) in the study period. Production volume varied considerably across units with two units accounting for nearly 80% of surgery performed. Data revealed variation on rates of transfers and readmissions as well as disease stage and mortality (both short and long term). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that mortality is linked to production volume as well as disease stage, but the small data quantity impedes rigorous statistical analysis. Further studies on the observed associations are required. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Risk factors for patient-reported errors during cancer follow-up: Results from a national survey in Denmark.

Due to an increased cancer survival, more cancer patients are referred to follow-up after primary treatment. Knowledge of patient safety during follow-up is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To examine patient-reported errors during cancer follow-up and identify factors associated with errors. DESIGN: A national survey on cancer patients' experiences of treatment and aftercare was conducted in 2012, about two years following cancer diagnosis (N=6914). Associations between patient-reported errors during follow-up and covariates were examined using multiple logistic regression. Qualitative responses were analysed using text analysis. RESULTS: This study included 3731 patients, representing a response rate of 64%. Overall, 27.6% of patients reported at least one error during cancer follow-up. 11.7% reported that important information was missing at follow-up consultations; 9.8% were not called in for a follow-up as expected; 16.7% reported that the doctor/nurse handling the follow-up consultation were ill-prepared on their course of disease. Other errors were reported by 4.7%. Patients who reported errors in follow-up were more likely to report an error or complication during primary cancer treatment, not having one health professional with oversight and responsibility for their overall follow-up pathway, be younger, have a diagnosis of rare cancer, poorer self-rated health and high usage of healthcare services. CONCLUSION: Workflows related to handling of test results, referrals, bookings and medical records have to be improved. Introduction of one particular healthcare professional responsible for the patients' follow-up may result in fewer patient-reported errors however interventions are needed to examine this. Patients prone to errors should be subject to particular attention.

Attention to cancer patients' safety after primary treatment is needed.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about patient safety issues after primary treatment of cancer is sparse. METHODS: The present article is a retrospective analysis of adverse events (AEs) after primary cancer treatment to characterise the types of AEs and their consequences. A total of 724 AEs reported from 2010 to 2013 were identified via the Danish Patient Safety Database. The International Classification for Patient Safety was used to characterise event types. Consequences were characterised as either psychical harm or delay. We focused on AEs in care transitions. RESULTS: Common event types were administrative processes (58%), communication and documentation (56%), clinical processes (42%) and medication (27%). 46% of AEs led to physical harm. 4% resulted in severe physical harm or death. 18% resulted in delay in diagnosis of relapse or new cancer, treatment or referral. 50% of all AEs were related to care transitions. The AEs in care transitions carry great potential for prevention as they often relate to inadequate administrative practices, poor communication and documentation, or to unclear transferal of responsibility for the patient. CONCLUSION: Attention to patient safety after primary cancer treatment is required. The identification of a substantial number of AEs in care transitions stresses a need for increased continuity and clear transfer of responsibility in cancer care after primary treatment. To support learning from AEs, the AE reports should provide more details on the contextual factors.

Involvement of patients with cancer in patient safety: a qualitative study of current practices, potentials and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in patient safety is widely advocated but knowledge regarding implementation of the concept in clinical practice is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To investigate existing practices for patient involvement in patient safety, and opportunities and barriers for further involvement. DESIGN: A qualitative study of patient safety involvement practices in patient trajectories for prostate, uterine and colorectal cancer in Denmark. Observations from four hospital wards and interviews with 25 patients with cancer, 11 hospital doctors, 10 nurses, four general practitioners and two private practicing gynaecologists were conducted using ethnographic methodology. FINDINGS: Patient safety was not a topic of attention for patients or dominant in communication between patients and healthcare professionals. The understanding of patient safety in clinical practice is almost exclusively linked to disease management. Involvement of patients is not systematic, but healthcare professionals and patients express willingness to engage. Invitation and encouragement of patients to become involved could be further systematised and developed. Barriers include limited knowledge of patient safety, of specific patient safety involvement techniques and concern regarding potential negative impact on doctor-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of patients in patient safety must take into account that despite stated openness to the idea of involvement, patients and health professionals may not in practice show immediate concern. Lack of systematic involvement can also be attributed to limited knowledge about how to implement involvement beyond the focus of self-monitoring and compliance and a concern about the consequences of patient involvement for treatment outcomes. To realise the potential of patients' and health professionals' shared openness towards involvement, there is a need for more active facilitation and concrete guidance on how involvement can be practiced by both parties.

[Patient involvement in patient safety is necessary, but the effect is undocumented]. / Involvering af patienterne i egen sikkerhed er nødvendig, men effekten er udokumenteret.

Patient involvement has been on the patient safety agenda for years. Several initiatives have been launched, but in spite of support from health-care professionals, patients and administrators the concept is not yet integrated in every day clinical practice. The vision is to create partnerships for the purpose of preventing patients from harm due to their contact to health care. The literature offers good ideas but is also characterized by lack of methodological rigor. A change of values and habits, a supportive infrastructure and further research is needed to reach the goal.

Safety hazards in cancer care: findings using three different methods.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at risk of injury during treatment. Some injuries are preventable, but prevention requires knowledge about the hazards. Aims To identify hazards and injuries relating to Danish patients with cancer (types and severity) and to test three different methods of identifying cancer-specific hazards. METHODS: Adverse events in cancer care were identified through reports from healthcare staff to the Danish Patient Safety Database, a retrospective chart review using the Global Trigger Tool, and reports to the Danish Cancer Society from patients with cancer and their relatives. Events were typed using the draft International Classification for Patient Safety. Severity was assessed by Safety Assessment Coding, the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) and qualitative assessment. RESULTS: 2429 cancer-related adverse event reports were found on the Danish Patient Safety Database, 260 adverse events were identified using the Global Trigger Tool, and 151 safety events were reported by patients and their relatives. Cancer-specific adverse events and general safety problems were identified. In most cases injury to patients was temporary but severe and permanent injury occurred with a relatively high frequency. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer are at risk of injury from cancer treatment procedures and as a consequence of problems related to administrative processes and communication. Types of identified events varied according to the methods used, and each method added new information. Further research on patient safety in cancer care and safety-enhancing activities is needed.