Promoting integrated care in prostate cancer through online prostate cancer-specific holistic needs assessment: a feasibility study in primary care.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the feasibility of implementing a novel model of integrated prostate cancer care involving an online prostate cancer-specific holistic needs assessment (sHNA) and shared digital communication between patients and their healthcare professionals (HCPs). The sHNA produces a semi-automated care plan that is finalised in consultation between the patient and their practice nurse. METHODS: Men living with and beyond prostate cancer were invited to participate in a 9-month non-randomised cluster controlled feasibility study. The intervention group was asked to complete the sHNA on three occasions. Data were collected using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at baseline, 10 and 24 weeks, and 9 months. Outcomes included recruitment, retention, acceptability, and engagement with the sHNA and PROMs. RESULTS: Fourteen general practices (8 intervention and 6 control), and 41 men (29 intervention and 12 control) participated. Initial patient engagement with the sHNA was high, with all but one receiving practice nurse-led follow-up and an individualised care plan. The sHNA proved useful in identifying 'red flag' symptoms, and helping practice nurses decide when to seek further medical care for the patients. There was a high level of acceptability for patients and HCPs. However, integration of care did not occur as intended because of problems linking hospital and general practice IT systems. CONCLUSION: While the study demonstrated the feasibility of implementing the sHNA, it did not meet the a priori progression criteria; as such, undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial is not appropriate until the identified methodological and technical issues have been addressed.

"My gut feeling is we could do more..." a qualitative study exploring staff and patient perspectives before and after the implementation of an online prostate cancer-specific holistic needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Men surviving prostate cancer report a wide range of unmet needs. Holistic needs assessments (HNA) are designed to capture these, but are traditionally paper-based, generic, and only carried out in secondary care despite national initiatives advocating a "shared care" approach. We developed an online prostate cancer-specific HNA (sHNA) built into existing IT healthcare infrastructure to provide a platform for service integration. Barriers and facilitators to implementation and use of the sHNA were explored from both the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) perspectives. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of two phases. Phase 1 used semi-structured interviews to explore HCPs (n = 8) and patients (n = 10) perceptions of the sHNA, prior to implementation. Findings were used to develop an implementation strategy. Phase 2 used semi-structured interviews to explore HCPs (n = 4) and patients (n = 7) experienced barriers and motivators to using the sHNA, 9 to 12 months after implementation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: HCPs and patients anticipated many benefits from using the sHNA. Barriers to implementation included: confidence to work in depth with prostate cancer patients, organisational and cultural change, and patient factors. Our implementation strategy addressed these barriers by the provision of disease specific training delivered in part by a clinical nurse specialist; and a peer-led IT supporter. Following implementation HCPs and patients perceived the sHNA as beneficial to their practice and care, respectively. However, some patients experienced barriers in using the sHNA related predominately to symptom perception and time since treatment. HCPs suggested minor software refinements. CONCLUSIONS: This work supports the importance of identifying barriers and motivators to implementation, and using targeted action via the development of an implementation strategy to address these. Whilst this process should be on-going, undertaking this work at an early stage will help to optimise the implementation of the sHNA for future trials.

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20,990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16,211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30-1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44-1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). INTERPRETATION: Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

A Web-Based Prostate Cancer-Specific Holistic Needs Assessment (CHAT-P): Multimethod Study From Concept to Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer experience immediate and long-term consequences of the disease and its treatment. They require both long-term monitoring for recurrence or progression and follow-up to identify and help manage psychosocial and physical impacts. Holistic Needs Assessment aims to ensure patient-centered continuing cancer care. However, paper-based generic tools have had limited uptake within cancer services, and there is little evidence of their impact. With the expansion of remote methods of care delivery and to enhance the value of generic tools, we developed a web-based Composite Holistic Needs Assessment Adaptive Tool-Prostate (CHAT-P) specifically for prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: This paper described the context, conceptual underpinning, and approach to design that informed the development of CHAT-P, starting from the initial concept to readiness for deployment. Through this narrative, we sought to contribute to the expanding body of knowledge regarding the coproduction process of innovative digital systems with potential for enhanced cancer care delivery. METHODS: The development of CHAT-P was guided by the principles of coproduction. Men with prostate cancer and health care professionals contributed to each stage of the process. Testing was conducted iteratively over a 5-year period. An initial rapid review of patient-reported outcome measures identified candidate items for inclusion. These items were categorized and allocated to overarching domains. After the first round of user testing, further items were added, improvements were made to the adaptive branching system, and response categories were refined. A functioning version of CHAT-P was tested with 16 patients recruited from 3 outpatient clinics, with interviewers adopting the think-aloud technique. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a framework approach. Interviews and informal discussions with health care professionals informed the development of a linked care plan and clinician-facing platform, which were incorporated into a separate feasibility study of digitally enhanced integrated cancer care. RESULTS: The findings from the interview study demonstrated the usability, acceptability, and potential value of CHAT-P. Men recognized the benefits of a personalized approach and the importance of a holistic understanding of their needs. Preparation for the consultation by the completion of CHAT-P was also recognized as empowering. The possible limitations identified were related to the importance of care teams responding to the issues selected in the assessment. The subsequent feasibility study highlighted the need for attention to men's psychological concerns and demonstrated the ability of CHAT-P to capture red flag symptoms requiring urgent investigation. CONCLUSIONS: CHAT-P offers an innovative means by which men can communicate their concerns to their health care teams before a physical or remote consultation. There is now a need for a full evaluation of the implementation process and outcomes where CHAT-P is introduced into the clinical pathway. There is also scope for adapting the CHAT-P model to other cancers.

Correction: A Web-Based Prostate Cancer-Specific Holistic Needs Assessment (CHAT-P): Multimethod Study From Concept to Clinical Practice.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/32153.].

"Good care" throughout the prostate cancer pathway: Perspectives of patients and health professionals.

PURPOSE: Men in follow up for prostate cancer represent the largest proportion of patients with the illness. In the United Kingdom, primary care is increasingly involved in caring for these patients. Little is known however regarding the factors that determine men's evaluation of their care and primary healthcare professionals' perceptions of the care they provide. This study aimed to investigate patient and primary care based health professionals' perspectives of what constitutes 'good care' for men with prostate cancer, including limiting or facilitating factors. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten patients and eight primary care based healthcare professionals and thematically analysed in collaboration with a patient representative group. RESULTS: Good care was identified by patient participants, with aspects of communication, including information, active participation, sensitivity of approach and context being highlighted. Healthcare professionals also prioritised communication as the basis of good care and recognised the benefits of locally based services. CONCLUSIONS: Treatments in prostate and other cancers continue to improve with corresponding increases in survival. To further develop and sustain the good care that patients require to help them cope with diagnosis, treatment and long term adjustment, investment in resources, training and innovative communication systems between patients, generalist and specialist services are required.

Integrated Care in Prostate Cancer (ICARE-P): Nonrandomized Controlled Feasibility Study of Online Holistic Needs Assessment, Linking the Patient and the Health Care Team.

BACKGROUND: The potential of technology to aid integration of care delivery systems is being explored in a range of contexts across a variety of conditions in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in UK men. With a 10-year survival rate of 84%, there is a need to explore innovative methods of care that are integrated between primary health care providers and specialist teams in order to address long-term consequences of the disease and its treatment as well as to provide continued monitoring for recurrence. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to compare a model of prostate cancer continuing and follow-up care integration, underpinned by digital technology, with usual care in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, and experience. METHODS: A first phase of the study has included development of an online adaptive prostate specific Holistic Needs Assessment system (HNA), training for primary care-based nurses, training of an IT peer supporter, and interviews with health care professionals and men with prostate cancer to explore views of their care, experience of technology, and views of the proposed intervention. In Phase 2, men in the intervention arm will complete the HNA at home to help identify and articulate concerns and share them with their health care professionals, in both primary and specialist care. Participants in the control arm will receive usual care. Outcomes including quality of life and well-being, prostate-specific concerns, and patient enablement will be measured 3 times over a 9-month period. RESULTS: Findings from phase 1 indicated strong support for the intervention among men, including those who had had little experience of digital technology. Men expressed a range of views on ways that the online system might be used within a clinical pathway. Health care professionals gave valuable feedback on how the output of the assessment might be presented to encourage engagement and uptake by clinical teams. Recruitment to the second phase of the study, the feasibility trial, commenced March 2017. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first in the United Kingdom to trial an online holistic needs assessment for men with prostate cancer, with data shared between patients and primary and secondary care providers. This study addresses recommendations in recent policy documents promoting the importance of data sharing and enhanced communication between care providers as a basis for care integration. We anticipate that this model of care will ultimately provide important benefits for both patients and the National Health Service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 31380482; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN31380482 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6s8I42u5N).

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial).

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. OBJECTIVES: In comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation. SETTING: General practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk). PARTICIPANTS: Patients requesting same-day consultations. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary - resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care. RESULTS: Of 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UC n = 7283; GPT n = 6695; NT n = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UC n = 5572; GPT n = 5171; NT n = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient-clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.