The development of the Cystectomy-Pathway Assessment Tool (C-PAT): a concise tool to assess the quality of care in the cystectomy pathway

National audit of patient reported experience of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer pathways

Objective

The objective of this study was to measure and describe the national patient experience of radical cystectomy (RC) pathways in the UK using the validated Cystectomy-Pathway Assessment Tool (C-PAT).

Patients and Methods

A cohort of 1081 patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer, between 1 January 2021 and 31 July 2022 at 33 UK cystectomy centres, returned completed C-PAT responses. SPSS was employed for data summary statistics, including median, interquartile range, Mann Whitney U test or Chi-square test with a 95% confidence interval to assess statistical significance between potentially associated variables. Open-text responses in the C-PAT tool were analysed and coded using NVivo software.

Results

In this cohort, the greatest perceived delay in the RC pathway, reported by 19% of patients (n = 208), was at the GP consultation to first hospital referral stage with suspected bladder cancer. Around 10% of patients perceived delays at each of the other stages in their pathway. Cancer nurse specialist (CNS) contact was strongly associated with an improved patient experience (p < 0.001); however, 9.5% of patients reported that they were not assigned a cancer nurse specialist in their pathway. Overall, 96% (n = 1028) reported their experience of RC pathway care to be good or excellent. There were no significant differences in reported patient experience found between cystectomy centres.

Conclusion

This audit demonstrates the feasibility of measuring patient experience of RC pathways at scale. The C-PAT tool demonstrated utility in identifying specific pathway areas for quality improvement. Overall UK patients report a high quality pathway experience. A focus on improving the referral pathway between primary and secondary care is necessary.

Diagnosis, treatment and survival from bladder, upper urinary tract, and urethral cancers: real-world findings from NHS England between 2013 and 2019

OBJECTIVE

We report NHS England data for patients with bladder cancer (BC), upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC: renal pelvic and ureteric), and urethral cancers from 2013 to 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hospital episode statistics, waiting times, and cancer registrations were extracted from NHS Digital.

RESULTS

Registrations included 128 823 individuals with BC, 16 018 with UTUC, and 2533 with urethral cancer. In 2019, 150 816 persons were living with a diagnosis of BC, of whom 113 067 (75.0%) were men, 85 117 (56.5%) were aged >75 years, and 95 553 (91.7%) were Caucasian. Incidence rates were stable (32.7-34.3 for BC, 3.9-4.2 for UTUC and 0.6-0.7 for urethral cancer per 100 000 population). Most patients 52 097 (mean [range] 41.3% [40.7-42.0%]) were referred outside the 2-week-wait pathway and 15 340 (mean [range] 12.2% [11.7-12.6%]) presented as emergencies. Surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or multimodal treatment use varied with disease stage, patient factors and Cancer Alliance. Between 27% and 29% (n = 6616) of muscle-invasive BCs did not receive radical treatment. Survival rates reflected stage, grade, location, and tumour histology. Overall survival rates did not improve over time (relative change: 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.97) at 2 years in contrast to other cancers.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic pathway for BC needs improvement. Increases in survival might be delivered through greater use of radical treatment. NHS Digital data offers a population-wide picture of this disease but does not allow individual outcomes to be matched with disease or patient features and key parameters can be missing or incomplete.

Development of a specific supportive care needs scale for radical cystectomy patients and its reliability and validity test

OBJECTIVE

To develop a specific supportive care needs scale for patients who have undergone radical cystectomy, and to assess its reliability and validity.

METHODS

The clinical test version of the scale was developed based on literature review, qualitative interviews, Delphi method, and a pretest. The reliability and validity of the scale were assessed in a cohort of 603 patients who had undergone radical cystectomy at 5 Grade A hospitals in Chongqing, China.

RESULTS

The final scale included 26 items across the following 7 dimensions: health information needs, social needs, family support needs, physiological needs, sexual needs, daily activities needs, and psychological needs. The content validity index was 0.991 and the content validity indices of each item ranged from 0.889 to 1.00. Seven factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis and the cumulative contribution of variance accounted for 70.762%. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good fit of the model (X²/df = 1.595, GFI = 0.904, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.932, CFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.044, and RMR = 0.026). The Cronbach's ɑ coefficient and retest reliability were 0.807 and 0.810, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The specific supportive care needs scale for radical cystectomy patients developed in this study showed the good reliability and validity. The tool can be invaluable for comprehensive assessment of the specific supportive care needs of these patients.

There is a Need for a Universal Language in the Reporting and Grading of Complication and Intervention Events to Ensure Comparability and Improvement of Surgical Care

To enhance the clarity and quality of complication reporting and grading for clinicians and patients, the CAMUS-Collaboration aims to develop the following: (1) a data dictionary; (2) parameters required for reporting; (3) risk-based reporting; (4) nursing and patient opinions; and (5) prospective reporting and grading of short- and long-term complications.