Achieving Benchmarks for National Quality Indicators Reduces Recurrence and Progression in Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Noncompliance with evidence-based interventions and guidelines contributes to significant and variable recurrence and progression in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The implementation of a quality performance indicator (QPI) programme in Scotland's National Health Service (NHS) aimed to improve cancer outcomes and reduce nationwide variance. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of hospitals achieving benchmarks for two specific QPIs on time to recurrence and progression in NMIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: QPIs for bladder cancer (BC) were enforced nationally in April 2014. NHS health boards collected prospective data on all new BC patients. Prospectively recorded surveillance data were pooled from 12 collaborating centres. INTERVENTION: QPIs of interest were (1) hospitals achieving detrusor muscle (DM) sampling target at initial transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) and (2) use of single instillation of mitomycin C after TURBT (SI-MMC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary and secondary endpoints were time to recurrence and progression, respectively. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multivariable regression analyses were performed. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2017, we diagnosed 3899 patients with new BC, of which 2688 were NMIBC . With a median follow up of 60.3 mo, hospitals achieving the DM sampling target had a 5.4% lower recurrence rate at 5 yr than hospitals not achieving this target (442/1136 [38.9%] vs 677/1528 [44.3%], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6-9.2, p = 0.005). SI-MMC was associated with a 20.4% lower recurrence rate (634/1791 [35.4%] vs 469/840 [55.8%], 95% CI = 16.4-24.5, p < 0.001). On Cox multivariable regression, meeting the DM target and SI-MMC were associated with significant improvement in recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.91, p = 0.0002 and HR 0.66, 95% CI = 0.59-0.74, p < 0.004, respectively) as well as progression-free survival (HR 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.84, p = 0.002 and HR 0.65, 95% CI = 0.49-0.87, p = 0.004, respectively). We did not have a national multicentre pre-QPI control. CONCLUSIONS: Within a national QPI programme, meeting targets for sampling DM and SI-MMC in the real world were independently associated with delays to recurrence and progression in NMIBC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Following the first 3 yr of implementing a novel quality performance indicator programme in Scotland, we evaluated compliance and outcomes in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In 2688 patients followed up for 5 yr, we found that achieving targets for sampling detrusor muscle and the single instillation of mitomycin C during and after transurethral resection of bladder tumour, respectively, were associated with delays in cancer recurrence and progression.

GP experiences of partner and external peer appraisal: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Appraisal is being adopted both in the UK and internationally as a means of aiding personal development for family doctors. However, it is not clear by whom they should be appraised. AIM: To explore attitudes of GPs towards being appraised by externally appointed GP colleagues and by their own partners. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured interviews of GPs who had experienced both forms of appraisal. SETTING: Lothian, Scotland. METHOD: Sixty-six GPs agreed to take part in a study of partner (n = 46) and external (n = 20) peer-based appraisal. Six months later this group was followed up by questionnaire to determine views of the process, in order to obtain a purposeful sample of 13 GPs who were interviewed in depth. RESULTS: We uncovered concern and a need for clarity about the linkage of appraisal to revalidation. Interviewees felt that the potentially charged nature of appraisal could lead to collusion between appraiser and appraisee, which may lead to a superficial engagement. Similarly, lack of local knowledge of an appraisee potentially enabled a strategy of avoidance. GPs opting for partner appraisal were less likely to undergo appraisal due to lack of protected time. CONCLUSION: There are reported advantages and disadvantages to having an external peer or partner appraisal. The relationship between revalidation and appraisal needs to be clarified as this leads to collusion and avoidance strategies by both appraisers and appraisees. Good training is required to both recognise and address these strategies. Protected time is essential for effective appraisal.

Morale among general practitioners: qualitative study exploring relations between partnership arrangements, personal style, and workload.

OBJECTIVES: To explore general practitioners' experiences of wellbeing and distress at work, to identify their perceptions of the causes of and solutions to distress, and to draw out implications for improving morale in general practice. DESIGN: Three stage qualitative study consisting of one to one unstructured interviews, one to one guided interviews, and focus groups. SETTING: Fife, Lothian, and the Borders, South East Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 63 general practitioner principals. RESULTS: Morale of general practitioners was explained by the complex interrelations between factors. Three key factors were identified: workload, personal style, and practice arrangements. Workload was commonly identified as a cause of low morale, but partnership arrangements were also a key mediating variable between increasing workload and external changes in general practice on the one hand and individual responses to these changes on the other. Integrated interventions at personal, partnership, and practice levels were seen to make considerable contributions to improving morale. Effective partnerships helped individuals to manage workload, but increasing workload was also seen to take away time and opportunities for practices to manage change and to build supportive and effective working environments. CONCLUSIONS: Solutions to the problem of low morale need integrated initiatives at individual, partnership, practice, and policy levels. Improving partnership arrangements is a key intervention, and rigorous action research is needed to evaluate different approaches.