RESUMO
Objective: To determine the acceptability of a non-invasive urinary biomarker test in place of conventional flexible cystoscopy for the diagnosis of bladder cancer in patients referred to a Rapid Access Haematuria Clinic (RAHC) with suspected urological malignancy. Patients and methods: Patients attending a RAHC were recruited to a prospective observational study evaluating a novel urinary biomarker (URO17™) for the detection of bladder cancer and invited to complete a two-part structured questionnaire. Questions related to demographics, attitudes towards conventional cystoscopy and the minimal acceptable sensitivity (MAS) at which a urinary biomarker would be considered an alternative to flexible cystoscopy both before and after undergoing the procedure. Results: A total of 250 patients completed the survey; the majority of whom were referred with visible haematuria (75.2%). One hundred seventy-one (68.4%) would be willing to accept a urinary biomarker in place of cystoscopy, with 59 (23.6%) expressing preference for the biomarker with a MAS as low as 85%. Conversely, 74 patients (29.6%) would not be willing to accept a urinary biomarker, regardless of its sensitivity. A significant number of patients reported a change in MAS after undergoing cystoscopy, with 80 (32.0%) and 16 (6.4%) increasing and decreasing the required value respectively (P = 0.001). The greatest increase was seen in the proportion of patients unwilling to accept a urinary biomarker regardless of its sensitivity, rising from 29.6% to 38.4%. Conclusions: Although many patients attending a RAHC would be willing to accept a urinary biomarker test in place of conventional flexible cystoscopy for the detection of bladder cancer, effective patient, public and clinician engagement will be necessary at all stages of implementation if it is to become an established component of the diagnostic pathway.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a relatively newly recognised but common long-term condition affecting 5 to 10% of the population. Effective management of CKD, with emphasis on strict blood pressure (BP) control, reduces cardiovascular risk and slows the progression of CKD. There is currently an unprecedented rise in referral to specialist renal services, which are often located in tertiary centres, inconvenient for patients, and wasteful of resources. National and international CKD guidelines include quality targets for primary care. However, there have been no rigorous evaluations of strategies to implement these guidelines. This study aims to test whether quality improvement interventions improve primary care management of elevated BP in CKD, reduce cardiovascular risk, and slow renal disease progression DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial (CRT) METHODS: This three-armed CRT compares two well-established quality improvement interventions with usual practice. The two interventions comprise: provision of clinical practice guidelines with prompts and audit-based education. The study population will be all individuals with CKD from general practices in eight localities across England. Randomisation will take place at the level of the general practices. The intended sample (three arms of 25 practices) powers the study to detect a 3 mmHg difference in systolic BP between the different quality improvement interventions. An additional 10 practices per arm will receive a questionnaire to measure any change in confidence in managing CKD. Follow up will take place over two years. Outcomes will be measured using anonymised routinely collected data extracted from practice computer systems. Our primary outcome measure will be reduction of systolic BP in people with CKD and hypertension at two years. Secondary outcomes will include biomedical outcomes and markers of quality, including practitioner confidence in managing CKD. A small group of practices (n = 4) will take part in an in-depth process evaluation. We will use time series data to examine the natural history of CKD in the community. Finally, we will conduct an economic evaluation based on a comparison of the cost effectiveness of each intervention. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN56023731. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier.