Search

This article highlights recent guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). It provides an overview of the COVID-19 rapid guidance produced since March 2020, along with an account of how the organization adapted during the pandemic, developing resources to guide practice with the limited time and evidence available. The growing COVID-19 evidence base is also considered, with reference to international initiatives supporting production of the best possible information to guide the global pandemic response., What’s New?: Since March 2020, the NICE has developed 21 rapid guidelines with NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSE&I) and a cross-speciality clinical group, supported by specialist societies and royal colleges. The 21 guidelines can be summarized into three groups-managing symptoms and complications, managing conditions that increase risk, and providing services during the pandemic. The rapid guidelines are part of a suite of rapid resources, including innovative technology briefings, shared learning examples and rapid evidence summaries, such as that for Vitamin D in COVID-19 (ES28)., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Primary Objective: To explore the clinical practice of communication partner training by Speech and Language Therapists for people with traumatic brain injury in the UK., Study Design: Online 97-item survey which addressed the practice of training both familiar and unfamiliar communication partners, and barriers and facilitators to implementation informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework., Participants: 169 Speech and Language Therapists from private and public settings in the UK., Results: While 96% reported training familiar communication partners, only 58% reported training unfamiliar communication partners. Therapists reported providing communication partner training consistent with best practice 43% of the time. Evidence-based published programmes were used by 13.8% and 19.9% of participants for training familiar and unfamiliar partners, respectively. Therapists reported using outcomes for familiar and unfamiliar communication partners 83% and 78% of the time. The most frequently reported barrier was lack of behavioral regulation (e.g., planning). Most frequent perceived facilitators were clinicians wanting to deliver communication partner training and that training was part of therapists' professional role (social professional role and identity)., Conclusions: Therapists were motivated to deliver communication partner training but reduced capability affected implementation. Further support to clinicians on outcome measurement with materials to develop workplace systems to monitor implementation is needed.

Background: The Faster Diagnosis Standard (FDS) is to be introduced in England in 2020. This standard is a new policy in which patients should have cancer ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days of referral., Aim: To explore public attitudes towards the FDS within the context of their recent referral experiences., Design and Setting: Four 90-minute focus groups (two in Guildford, two in Bradford)., Method: Participants aged >50 years without a current cancer diagnosis ( N = 29), who had completed certain diagnostic tests, for example, ultrasound, and received results within the last 6 months were recruited. Age, education, and sex were evenly distributed across groups through purposive sampling., Results: The largest cause of concern was the waiting process for obtaining test results. Most had experienced swift referral, and it was difficult for participants to understand how the new standard could impact upon time progressing through the system. Responsibility for meeting the standard was also a concern: participants did not see their own behaviours as a form of involvement. The GP's role was conceptualised by patients as communicating about their referral, establishing patients' preferences for information, and continued involvement at each stage of the referral process. The standard legitimised chasing for test results, but 28 days was considered too long., Conclusion: Patients should be asked what they would like to know about their referral. GPs should be more transparent about the referral process and the potential for a lack of clarity around next steps., (© British Journal of General Practice 2019.)

Aims: To examine the impact of cancer awareness training for community-based health workers on confidence to talk about cancer, and knowledge of cancer risk factors and signs and symptoms., Methods: Community-based health workers from Sandwell, Birmingham and Solihull were invited to take part in one of 14 one-day training workshops. Trainees completed questionnaires at the beginning of the workshop and were followed up one month later. Confidence in talking about cancer was examined. Knowledge of cancer risk factors and signs and symptoms was assessed. Trainees were asked to rate the usefulness of the workshop, whether they would recommend it to others and whether they had put what they had learnt into practice., Results: A total of 187 community-based health workers took part in the workshops, and 167 (89%) completed the one-month follow-up. Considerable improvements were observed in confidence to discuss cancer. For example, the proportion of participants reporting feeling 'very confident'/'fairly confident' in discussing signs and symptoms of cancer increased from 32% to 96% (p < .001). Substantial improvements in trainees' knowledge were also observed, with 79% of participants correctly identifying 10 out of 11 known risk factors for cancer at one month compared with 21% before training (p < .001). Average (unprompted) recall of cancer signs and symptoms also increased from 2.3 (± 1.6) to 2.7 (± 1.5), (p = .02). Most trainees (83%) rated the workshop as 'very useful', and 89% said they would 'definitely' recommend the workshop., Conclusion: The cancer awareness training was reviewed positively by community-based health workers and led to improvements in confidence to talk about cancer, and knowledge of risk factors and warning signs of cancer. It is hoped that raising awareness among this group will help them to communicate and drive behaviour change in the at-risk populations with whom they work., (© Royal Society for Public Health 2014.)

Objectives: To develop and validate a lung cancer awareness measure (Lung CAM) and explore the demographical and social predictors of lung cancer awareness in the general population. METHODS STUDY 1: Symptoms and risk factors for lung cancer were identified from the medical literature and health professional expertise in an iterative process. Test-retest reliability, internal reliability, item analyses, construct validity and sensitivity to changes in awareness of the Lung CAM were assessed in three samples (total N=191). RESULTS STUDY 1: The Lung CAM demonstrated good internal (Cronbach's α=0.88) and test-retest reliability (r=0.81, p<0.001). Validity was supported by lung cancer experts scoring higher than equally educated controls (t(106)=8.7, p<0.001), and volunteers randomised to read lung cancer information scoring higher than those reading a control leaflet (t(81)=3.66, p<0.001). METHODS STUDY 2: A population-based sample of 1484 adults completed the Lung CAM in a face-to-face, computer-assisted interview. RESULTS STUDY 2: Symptom awareness was low (average recall of one symptom) and there was little awareness of risk factors other than smoking. Familiarity with cancer, and being from a higher socioeconomic group, were associated with greater awareness., Conclusions: Using a valid and reliable tool for assessing awareness showed the UK population to have low awareness of lung cancer symptoms and risk factors. Interventions to increase lung cancer awareness are needed to improve early detection behaviour.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine ethnic differences in participation in colorectal cancer screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). It assessed both intentions to be screened and actual screening uptake, and considered whether demographic, health and psychosocial factors mediated the ethnic differences. The setting of this study follows a subset of participants from the UK FS Trial., Methods: A postal questionnaire assessed ethnicity, demographic characteristics, health, attitudes to screening and FS screening intentions. Data on screening intentions were available for 17,333 adults aged 55-64 years (Sample 1). Screening uptake was recorded in a subsample of 4303 respondents who were subsequently randomized to receive an invitation to screening (Sample 2)., Results: Screening intentions in Sample 1 were equally high across all the ethnic groups (>80% [13,724/17,042] reported they were interested). In contrast, attendance (Sample 2) was considerably lower among Asians (54% [43/79]) compared with White (69% [2843/4123]) or Black (80% [33/41]) respondents. Multivariate analysis showed that potential explanatory factors, including socioeconomic deprivation, poor health and fearful and fatalistic attitudes did not account for the lower screening attendance among Asians., Conclusion: Further research is required to identify explanations for the gap between intentions and behaviour in UK Asians if any future FS screening programme is to be introduced equitably.