Implementing a nurse-enabled, integrated, shared-care model involving specialists and general practitioners in breast cancer post-treatment follow-up: a study protocol for a phase II randomised controlled trial (the EMINENT trial).

BACKGROUND: Due to advances in early detection and cancer treatment, 5-year relative survival rates for early breast cancer surpass 90% in developed nations. There is increasing focus on promotion of wellness in survivorship and active approaches to reducing morbidity related to treatment; however, current models of follow-up care are heavily reliant on hospital-based specialist-led care. This study aims to test the feasibility of the EMINENT intervention for implementing an integrated, shared-care model involving both cancer centre specialists and community-based general practitioners for early breast cancer post-treatment follow-up. METHODS: We describe a protocol for a phase II, randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms and 1:1 allocation. A total of 60 patients with early-stage breast cancer will be randomised to usual, specialist-led, follow-up care (as determined by the treating surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) or shared follow-up care intervention (i.e. EMINENT). EMINENT is a nurse-enabled, pre-specified shared-care pathway with follow-up responsibilities divided between cancer centre specialists (i.e. surgeons and oncologists) and general practitioners. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer. Secondary outcomes include patient experience, acceptance, and satisfaction of care; dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviours; financial toxicity; adherence; health resource utilisation; and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The trial is designed to identify the barriers to implementing a shared-care model for breast cancer survivors following treatment. Results of this study will inform a definitive trial testing the effects of shared-care model on health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors, as well as its ability to alleviate the growing demands on the healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001594112 . Registered on 19 November 2019.

Safety and cost benefits of bilateral total knee replacement in an acute hospital.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty of both knees under the one anaesthetic has become a common procedure. Benefits reported include a shorter overall hospital stay and reduced costs. The published studies come from university associated tertiary referral hospitals with well-established research establishments and a vast experience of joint replacement. This study examines the experience of a small hospital to see if similar benefits can be achieved. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed of the synchronous bilateral knee replacements against a match group of bilateral staged knee replacements. Both groups were compared with a control group of unilateral knee replacements. A prospectively conducted review of the synchronous and staged bilateral knee replacement groups was then carried out to assess the clinical outcome in these two groups. RESULTS: The incidence of surgical and medical complications was not statistically different in any group. The bed stay for bilateral surgery was increased by 2 days compared to unilateral surgery with a net saving of 6 days hospital stay for the patient group having both knees replaced at separate operations within 1 year. At an average of 2.5 years post surgery there was no statistically significant difference in outcome between those patients who had both knees replaced either synchronously or at staged intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral knee replacement is a good choice for patient and hospital. Bilateral surgery does not increase the risk of perioperative complications to the patient and reduces the overall cost to the hospital. There is no difference in short to medium term clinical outcome between patients who have had both knees replaced synchronously or at staged intervals. Results comparable in safety, as judged by complication rates and efficiency, as judged by length of stay can be achieved in a smaller metropolitan level 2 hospital environment.

Blood transfusion prescribing in the ACT: an insight into clinical decision making.

Medical practitioners with varying levels of experience may make medical decisions in hospitals. Little is known about who is responsible for these decisions. We determined transfusion appropriateness during an audit of blood transfusion, before developing practice improvement strategies, by concurrent medical record review. The prescriber could be determined in 78% of transfusion episodes: most were specialist staff. Registrars and after-hours staff prescribed significantly fewer inappropriate transfusions. The findings have significant implications in understanding clinical decision making in the hospital setting and for the targeting of quality improvement strategies in particular.