Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

Assessment and management of late radiation-associated dysphagia after treatment for head and neck cancer: A scoping review and survey of UK speech and language therapists

BACKGROUND

Late side effects of head and neck cancer treatment commonly affect swallowing function. Late radiation-associated dysphagia (late-RAD) often presents years post-treatment when patients have been discharged from their multidisciplinary team. Timely symptom management may provide important physical and emotional support, potentially reducing the overall healthcare burden. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are key in the assessment and management of dysphagia but there is no current guidance in the late-RAD setting.

AIMS

The primary objective was to establish how late-RAD is assessed in both existing literature and by UK SLT. The study also aimed to explore UK SLT approaches to management.

METHODS

A dual methodology approach was taken. A scoping review (SR) of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Embase databases was conducted between November and December 2022. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting dysphagia outcomes >2 years post-treatment with narrative data synthesis. Also, a survey of SLTs working in the United Kingdom was conducted between November 2023 and February 2024. Respondents were questioned about their current pathways and service provision for patients with late-RAD.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

The SR included 39 studies. Dysphagia was assessed using three different toxicity grades; five patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and five clinical assessments. Five studies were multidimensional in their approach to data collection, whilst nine used PROMs alone and four used a toxicity grade alone. The survey received 56 responses. Only six respondents reported an existing late effect clinic (all tumour sites) in their region. A wide range of measures were used to assess dysphagia including 12 different PROMs. Instrumental assessments were used by most (98% Videofluoroscopy; 82% Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing). Rehabilitation was offered by 86% and this was intensive in 34%. Late-RAD patient information was routinely provided by 35 respondents and usually within 1 year of treatment completion.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of assessment methods and outcome measures were used to report dysphagia in existing literature but often in a unidimensional approach. In the United Kingdom, SLTs also use a variety of assessment tools and regularly offer intensive rehabilitation. Without consensus on how we measure late-RAD, synthesising evidence to guide service provision is challenging.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Late-RAD significantly affects swallowing function, often necessitating enteral feeding which in turn impacts emotional and health-related quality of life. There is no existing guidance on optimum pathways, assessment methods or effective treatment options. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study highlights the lack of consensus in the evidence base regarding how to assess and measure late-RAD. In the United Kingdom, referral pathways are not well defined and there is wide variation on provision of information and specialist assessment and management of late-RAD. What are the potential or clinical implications of this work? Challenges in synthesising existing studies translate to variations in practice due to a lack of guidelines. Without a robust evidence base, patients will experience geographical variation in how they are supported with their late-RAD symptoms.

Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation

Background

Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.

Objectives

To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.

Methods

The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.

Results

Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.

Limitations

The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.

Conclusions

The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.

Future research

Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.

Study registration

This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

PET-CT-guided, symptom-based, patient-initiated surveillance versus clinical follow-up in head neck cancer patients (PETNECK2): study protocol for a multicentre feasibility study and non-inferiority, randomised, phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of treated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients develop recurrence. The risk of recurrence declines with time from treatment. Current guidelines recommend clinical follow-up every two months for the first two years after treatment, with reducing intensity over the next three years. However, evidence for the effectiveness of these regimes in detecting recurrence is lacking, with calls for more flexible, patient-centred follow-up strategies.

METHODS

PETNECK2 is a UK-based multi-centre programme examining a new paradigm of follow-up, using positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)-guided, symptom-based, patient-initiated surveillance. This paradigm is being tested in a unblinded, non-inferiority, phase III, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients with HNC, one year after completing curative intent treatment, with no clinical symptoms or signs of loco-regional or distant metastasis will be randomised using a 1:1 allocation ratio to either regular scheduled follow-up, or to PET-CT guided, patient-initiated follow-up. Patients at a low risk of recurrence (negative PET-CT) will receive a face-to-face education session along with an Information and Support (I&S) resource package to monitor symptoms and be in control of initiating an urgent appointment when required. The primary outcome of the RCT is overall survival. The RCT also has an in-built pilot, a nested QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI), and a nested mixed-methods study on patient experience and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). An initial, single-arm feasibility study has been completed which determined the acceptability of the patient-initiated surveillance intervention, the completion rates of baseline questionnaires, and optimised the I&S resource prior to implementation in the RCT.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesise that combining an additional 12-month post-treatment PET-CT scan and I&S resource will both identify patients with asymptomatic recurrence and identify those at low risk of future recurrence who will be empowered to monitor their symptoms and seek early clinical follow-up when recurrence is suspected. This change to a patient-centred model of care may have effects on both quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 13,709,798; 15-Oct-2021.

Development of the 'ACT now & check-it-out' intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting recurrences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors.

METHODS

An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consultation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21).

RESULTS

The intervention ('ACT now & check-it-out') comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors were: assessing what is normal for them; regularly checking for symptom changes; prompt help-seeking for persistent/new symptoms; self-management of fear of recurrence; engaging with the intervention over time.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed an evidence, person and theory-based intervention to support PIFU self-care behaviors in HNC patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A trial is underway to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. If successful, this intervention could be adapted for patients with other cancers or diseases, which is important given the recent shift towards PIFU pathways.

Algorithms of follow-up in patients with head and neck cancer in relation to primary location and advancement. Consensus of Polish ENT Society Board and Head Neck Experts

Summary

The algorithm of follow-up in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) has been prepared by a board of Polish Head Neck and Oncology Experts. The aim of this research is to focus on the specificity of HNC monitoring, to review the current trends in follow-up, and to adapt the evidence-based medicine international standards to the capabilities of the local healthcare service.

Materials and methods

The first methodological step was to categorize HNCs according to the estimated risk of failure after the adequate first-line treatment and according to the possibility of effective salvage treatment, resulting in improved overall survival. The final method used in this work was to prepare an authors' original monitoring algorithm for HNC groups with a high, moderate, and low risk of recurrence in combination with a high or low probability of using an effective salvage.

Results

Four categories were established: Ia. low risk of recurrence + effective organ preservation feasible; Ib. low risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; II. moderate risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; III. high risk of recurrence + effective salvage feasible; and IV. high risk of recurrence + no effective salvage feasible. Follow-up visit consisting of 1. ENT examination + neck ultrasound, 2. imaging HN tests, 3. chest imaging, 4. blood tests, and 5. rehabilitation (speech and swallowing) was scheduled with a very different frequency, at the proposed monthly intervals, tailored to the needs of the group. The number of visits for individual groups varies from 1 to 8 in the first 2 years and from 1 to 17 in the entire 5-year monitoring period. Group IV has not been included in regular follow-up, visits on own initiative of the patient if symptomatic, or supportive care needs, having in mind that third-line therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors are available.

Conclusion

Universal monitoring algorithm for HNC four groups with a high, moderate, and low risk of recurrence after the adequate treatment in combination with a high or low probability of using an effective salvage is an innovative approach to redeploying system resources and ensuring maximum benefit for patients with HNC.

Musculoskeletal physiotherapists' discharge practices for people treated with low back pain: A United Kingdom survey

BACKGROUND

Persistent low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability, and a major burden on the healthcare system globally. Many people with LBP experience recurrent pain flares and receive repeated appointments and re-referrals to services such as physiotherapy. However, it is not clear what the criteria are for discharging people with LBP from physiotherapy services. This study aims to describe the current practices for discharging people from physiotherapy for LBP in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online national (UK) survey was conducted among qualified physiotherapists who treat people with LBP in UK musculoskeletal out-patient services.

RESULTS

A total of 104 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents reported using (i) a shared decision-making (77%) and (ii) person-physiotherapist goal attainment (74%) approach to discharging people with LBP. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported using a patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) approach. Only 8% of respondents reported using a graded discharge approach with 'booster' appointments. A PIFU or graded discharge approach was considered most pertinent for people at higher risk of a pain flare (97%; 86%) and with low self-efficacy to self-manage their LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This UK survey established that discharge practices for people with LBP after physiotherapy vary. Whilst the majority of people are currently discharged with a PIFU appointment, a graded discharge approach may be more beneficial for people who are less likely to initiate a PIFU appointment. Further consideration on the development of such a pathway is now required.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer

BACKGROUND

The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).

Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current follow-up models in cancer are seen to be unsustainable and inflexible, and there is growing interest in alternative models, such as patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). It is therefore important to understand whether PIFU is acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification (to January 2022), selection and data extraction. Thematic synthesis was undertaken for qualitative data, and survey findings were tabulated and described.

RESULTS

Nine qualitative studies and 22 surveys were included, mainly in breast and endometrial cancer. Women treated for breast or endometrial cancer and HCPs were mostly supportive of PIFU. Facilitators for PIFU included convenience, control over own health and avoidance of anxiety-inducing clinic appointments. Barriers included loss of reassurance from scheduled visits and lack of confidence in self-management. HCPs were supportive of PIFU but concerned about resistance to change, unsuitability of PIFU for some patients and costs.

CONCLUSION

PIFU is viewed mostly positively by women treated for breast or endometrial cancer, and by HCPs, but further evidence is needed from a wider range of cancers, men, and more representative samples. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181412).

Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians' Perspective

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres; however, there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians' and clinical specialist nurses' (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national "Personalising Endometrial Cancer Follow-up" educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians' views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC; however, barriers were identified for non-English-speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients' personal needs and preferences.

Head and neck cancer explained: an overview of management pathways

Head and neck cancer is a rare disease and general dental practitioners (GDPs) are at the forefront of head and neck assessment for malignancy in the community. Having an awareness of the signs and symptoms with which head and neck cancers can present promotes earlier diagnosis and increases the potential for better prognosis and quality of life. This article will outline the head and neck cancer pathway from presentation, diagnosis and management planning, to treatment and beyond. This should help to give GDPs insight into the process their patients will experience while under the care of the multidisciplinary team and enable them to give patients returning to primary care the best support. This article is part of a larger series that will explore each facet of care in greater detail to give a significantly greater understanding of the pathway.

Head and neck cancer includes a range of malignancies and general dental practitioners provide an essential role in early detection to save lives and prevent significant morbidity.

Symptoms of head and neck cancer can be vague but a high index of suspicion should be maintained for patients who have had symptoms for more than a few weeks, with progressive features and without variability.

Standardised pathways exist for diagnosis, staging and multidisciplinary, evidence-based management, all centred around patient preferences.

Exploring the views of patients' and their family about patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' and their family members' views on acceptability and feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), including concerns and anticipated benefits.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from UK HNC clinics, support groups and advocacy groups. They completed a survey (n = 144) and/or qualitative interview (n = 30), three with a family member. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, quantitative data using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Preference for follow-up care in HNC was complex and individual. Many patients thought PIFU could beneficially reallocate health care resources and encourage self-management. Patients' main concerns with PIFU were losing the reassurance of regular clinic appointments and addressing mental well-being needs within PIFU, possibly using peer support. Patients were concerned about their ability to detect recurrence due to lack of expertise and information. They emphasised the importance of a reliable, direct and easy urgent appointment service and of feeling supported and heard by clinicians. Patients believed family and friends need support.

CONCLUSION

PIFU may be feasible and acceptable for certain HNC patients, providing it addresses support for mental well-being, provides quick, reliable and direct clinician access and information on "red flag" symptoms, and ensures patients and their caregivers feel supported.

Using qualitative methods in pilot and feasibility trials to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale randomised trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Many trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.