Search

Background Strategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work. Methods and analysis The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation. Discussion This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017081030

BackgroundHealth-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.ObjectivesOur objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.DesignA realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.ParticipantsIn total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.Data sourcesUsing keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.ResultsThe concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.LimitationsSome specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.ConclusionsThis review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesPercutaneous cervical cordotomy (PCC) is an interventional ablative procedure in the armamentarium for cancer pain treatment, but there is limited evidence to support its use. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of PCC.MethodsAnalysis was undertaken of the first national (UK) prospective data repository of adult patients with cancer undergoing PCC for pain treatment. The relationship between pain and other outcomes before and after PCC was examined using appropriate statistical methods.ResultsData on 159 patients’ PCCs (performed from 1 January 2012 to 6 June 2017 in three centres) were assessed: median (IQR) age was 66 (58–71) years, 47 (30%) were female. Mesothelioma was the most common primary malignancy (57%). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis to PCC assessment was 13.3 (6.2–23.2) months; PCC to follow-up was 9 (8–25) days; and survival after PCC was 1.3 (0.6–2.8) months. The mean (SD) for ‘average pain’ using a numerical rating scale was 6 (2) before PCC and 2 (2) at follow-up, and for ‘worst pain’ 9 (1) and 3 (3), respectively. The median (IQR) reduction in strong opioid dose at follow-up was 50% (34–50). With the exception of ‘activity’, all health-related quality of life scores (5-level version of EuroQol-5 Dimension) either improved or were stable after PCC. Six patients (4%) had PCC-related adverse events.ConclusionsPCC is an effective treatment for cancer pain; however, findings in this study suggest PCC referrals tended to be late in patients’ disease trajectories. Further study into earlier treatment and seeking international consensus on PCC outcomes will further enhance opportunities to improve patient care.

Background High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause all cervical cancer and the majority of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. Although HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, public awareness of this is poor. In addition, many clinicians lack adequate knowledge or confidence to discuss sexual transmission and related sensitive issues. Complex science needs to be communicated in a clear, digestible, honest and salient way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to coproduce with patients who have cancer appropriate resources to guide these highly sensitive and difficult consultations.\ud\udMethods A matrix of evidence developed from a variety of sources, including a systematic review and telephone interviews with clinicians, supported the production of a draft list of approximately 100 potential educational messages. These were refined in face-to-face patient interviews using card-sorting techniques, and tested in cognitive debrief interviews to produce a ‘fast and frugal’ knowledge tool.\ud\udResults We developed three versions of a consultation guide, each comprising a clinician guidance sheet and patient information leaflet for gynaecological (cervical, vaginal, vulvar), anal or oropharyngeal cancers. That cancer could be caused by a sexually transmitted virus acquired many years previously was surprising to many and shocking to a few patients. However, they found the information clear, helpful and reassuring. Clinicians acknowledged a lack of confidence in explaining HPV, welcomed the clinician guidance sheets and considered printed information for patients particularly useful.\ud\udConclusion Because of the ‘shock factor’, clinicians will need to approach the discussion of HPV with sensitivity and take individual needs and preferences into account, but we provide a novel, rigorously developed and tested resource which should have broad applicability in the UK National Health Service and other health systems.

Background The duration between first symptom and a cancer diagnosis is important because, if shortened, may lead to earlier stage diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes. We have previously developed a tool to measure this duration in newly-diagnosed patients. In this two-phase study, we aimed further improve our tool and to conduct a trial comparing levels of anxiety between two modes of delivery: self-completed versus researcher-administered. Methods In phase 1, ten patients completed the modified tool and participated in cognitive debrief interviews. In phase 2, we undertook a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of the revised tool (Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM)) in three hospitals for 11 different cancers. Respondents were invited to provide either exact or estimated dates of first noticing symptoms and presenting them to primary care. The primary outcome was anxiety related to delivery mode, with completeness of recording as a secondary outcome. Dates from a subset of patients were compared with GP records. Results After analysis of phase 1 interviews, the wording and format were improved. In phase 2, 201 patients were randomised (93 self-complete and 108 researcher-complete). Anxiety scores were significantly lower in the researcher-completed group, with a mean rank of 83.5; compared with the self-completed group, with a mean rank of 104.0 (Mann-Whitney U = 3152, p = 0.007). Completeness of data was significantly better in the researcher-completed group, with no statistically significant difference in time taken to complete the tool between the two groups. When comparing the dates in the patient questionnaires with those in the GP records, there was evidence in the records of a consultation on the same date or within a proscribed time window for 32/37 (86%) consultations; for estimated dates there was evidence for 23/37 consultations (62%). Conclusions We have developed and tested a tool for collecting patient-reported data relating to appraisal intervals, help-seeking intervals, and diagnostic intervals in the cancer diagnostic pathway for 11 separate cancers, and provided evidence of its acceptability, feasibility and validity. This is a useful tool to use in descriptive and epidemiological studies of cancer diagnostic journeys, and causes less anxiety if administered by a researcher. Trial registration ISRCTN04475865

Introduction: Persistent infection with sexually transmitted, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is the cause of all cervical cancers and some anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. HPV is an extremely common asymptomatic infection but little known and poorly understood by the public. Patients with HPV-related cancers have new and challenging information needs due to the complex natural history of HPV and the stigma of sexual transmission. They may ask questions that are outside the remit of the traditional cancer consultation, and there is a lack of guidance on how to counsel them. This study aims to fulfil that need by developing and testing cancer site-specific scripted consultations.Methods and analysis: A synthesis of findings generated from previous work, a systematic review of information-based interventions for patients with HPV-related cancers, and interviews with cancer clinicians will provide the evidence base underpinning provisional messages. These will be explored in three phases of face-to-face interviews with 75-90 purposively selected patients recruited in cancer clinics to: (1) select and prioritise the most salient messages, (2) phrase the messages appropriately in plain English and, (3) test their acceptability and usefulness. Phases 1 and 2 will draw on card-sorting methods used in website design. In phase three, we will create cancer site-specific versions of the script and test them using cognitive interviewing techniques.Ethics and dissemination: The study has received ethical approval. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The final product will be cancer-specific scripted consultations, most likely in the form of a two-sided information sheet with the most important messages to be conveyed in a consultation on one side, and frequently asked questions for later reading on the reverse. However, they will also be appropriate and readily adaptable to web-based uses.

Background There is no validated way of measuring diagnostic delay in cancer, especially covering patient and primary care delays. An instrument is needed in order to determine the effect of potential interventions to reduce delay and improve cancer morbidity and mortality. Methods Development of a postal questionnaire tool to measure patient and primary care time responses to key symptoms and signs. The pilot questionnaire was sent to 184 patients with suspected cancer. Results The response rate was only 85/184 (46.2%). Anxiety was cited as one reason for this low response. Patients returning questionnaires were more likely to be women and more likely to be younger. 84/85 (98.8%) provided consent to access medical records, and questions regarding health profile, smoking and socio-economic profile were answered adequately. Outcome data on their cancer diagnosis was linked satisfactorily and the question about GP-initiated investigations was answered well. Estimated dates for symptom duration were preferred for patient delays, but exact dates were preferred for primary care delays; however there was a significant amount of missing data. Conclusion A more personal approach to the collection of data about the duration of symptoms in this group of people is needed other than a postal questionnaire. However elements of this piloted questionnaire are likely to figure strongly in future development and evaluation of this tool.

Introduction There are around 1800 new cases of mesothelioma annually in the UK.The incidence of mesothelioma is still rising and is expected to peak between 2010 and 2015.Symptom control is central to the management of patients with mesothelioma. The National Mesothelioma Framework (2007) has suggested that patients should have access to services that offer cordotomy to provide relief from pain. There is however, great inequity in the provision of services offering cordotomy; the level of evidence to support the provision of invasive neuro-destructive procedures such as cordotomy is poor. For this small group of patients the procedures may yield significant analgesic benefit, however there is an as yet unquantified associated morbidity. This is a pilot study that focuses on cordotomy. Aims and Methods To establish consensus on the role of cordotomy in mesothelioma related pain and to set up a National Registry. We undertook a systematic review of the literature, and used a novel web based consensus methodology approach to clarify the role of cordotomy in the management of mesothelioma-related pain. We examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support continued provision and commissioning of cordotomy, and provide a benchmark for the availability and use of this procedure in the treatment of pain associated with mesothelioma in the U.K. The study culminated in a Consensus Conference at the Royal Society of Medicine on the 10th October 2011. Following this, we will establish a national registry study for cordotomy in mesothelioma-related pain management with Dendrite Clinical Systems. Results The results of the systematic review and web based consensus work will be presented. 101 participants completed the web based questionnaire; there were two rounds of Delphi before consensus was reached. Availability of cordotomy in the U.K. will be discussed. Conclusion The approach of systematic review, Web Based Delphi, Nominal Group and Consensus Conference was successful. In view of this we plan to apply the methodology to other interventional approaches in palliative and supportive care. A surprise finding was the quantity of qualitative data that came through the web based consensus tool.