URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Commissioning Forum
  HTML https://commissioningforum.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Non Elective Admission Reduction
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 66--------------------------------------------------
       Implementation details for Stratified Cancer pathways initiative
       ?
       By: admini5 Date: May 11, 2015, 4:48 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [center]What are the implementation details for Stratified
       Cancer pathways initiative?[/center]
       The initiative was tested for 4 pathways: breast, colorectal,
       lung and prostate cancer, across 14 sites. Some sites tested
       more than 1 pathway.
       For each pathway
       With the support of NHS Improvement, current pathways were
       mapped to identify the different routes patients may take from
       diagnosis and treatment decisions to specialist support and
       aftercare. Baseline data were gathered around referral numbers
       and patient flow through the pathways.
       A patient experience survey was undertaken to identify the main
       issues for patients, in order to improve the information and
       support offered to different groups. For breast cancer patients
       the main issues identified were fatigue, fear of recurrence and
       recognising signs and symptoms of recurrence; for colorectal
       cancer they were bowel and urinary problems, erectile
       dysfunction and sexual issues, and signs and symptoms of
       recurrence; for lung cancer they were weight loss, fatigue and
       breathlessness, and financial problems; and for prostate cancer
       they were the signs and symptoms of recurrence, erectile
       dysfunction and continence management.
       Patient education events or wellbeing clinics were established
       for patients in all pathways. The format varied according to
       local needs and resources, but all aimed to provide patients
       with more information based on the issues previously identified.
       Charities specific to the tumour groups were engaged from the
       start of the programme and there are examples of joint
       initiatives arising from this work − for example, the
       Beating Bowel Cancer: Moving On survivorship booklet and input
       to the video clips on FAQs on their website. Leading charity
       representatives attended workshop events to work with and advise
       teams.
       For all pathways holistic needs assessments were implemented.
       These built on previous assessments and focused on a patient’s
       medical, psychological, social, spiritual, and financial and
       information needs following treatment.
       Patients and clinicians then jointly developed care plans and
       treatment summaries based on the patients’ identified needs.
       This informed the process of stratification, in which patients
       were stratified into supported self-management, shared care or
       complex case management, corresponding to low, medium and high
       levels of specialist support.
       The stratification decision depended on a number of elements
       including:
       -
       -
       -
       -
       -
       Patients can move between the different levels of care as their
       needs and the degree of dependency change.
       The test work established that for lung cancer all patients
       required some form of professional-led care but several could
       self-manage for periods of the pathway and could be supported by
       telephone assessment during this period.
       The treatment summary provides a useful tool for patients and
       GPs to understand the disease stage, what treatment the patient
       received, the management plan and what to look out for in the
       future.
       At each test site
       Following recruitment, each test site participated in briefings
       and launch workshop events run by NHS Improvement, explaining
       the aims and objectives of the initiative and clarifying the
       expectations and deliverables over the course of the project.
       Risks were identified at this stage and advice was provided.
       Each team established a project steering group with stakeholder
       representation to agree plans. The most successful teams
       featured strong clinical champions supported by enthusiastic
       nurses and an executive team.
       Pathway mapping and baseline data collection were scheduled and
       facilitated by NHS Improvement at each test site. Data on the
       number of new referrals per annum, outpatient activity and
       unplanned admissions were confirmed and trajectories identified
       over the course of the test period. Progress and data were
       reported monthly to NHS Improvement.
       Several national workshop events were held for each phase of the
       programme. These sought to share learning, solve problems and
       enable networking with colleagues.
       Patient involvement groups were held locally as well as by the
       national team. Patients were encouraged to attend national
       workshop events with their local teams.
       Remote monitoring
       Remote monitoring means the scheduling and monitoring of ongoing
       surveillance tests without the need for a face-to-face
       outpatient appointment. Remote monitoring is a critical
       component of the self-managed pathway. Suitable patients are low
       risk, stable patients in terms of their disease, their treatment
       and its effects, and their psychological or social support
       needs.
       The system must provide a robust method of tracking patients and
       ensuring that patients are tested as per the local follow-up
       schedule and that defaults in attendance are managed
       appropriately. The systems draw data from local cancer
       information systems, pathology and other diagnostic systems to
       enable the healthcare professional (usually a clinical nurse
       specialist working under protocol) to review the test results,
       take the appropriate action and arrange the next test. The
       monitoring solution can be individualised to include details of
       staging, diagnosis and treatment, and upper limits that would
       trigger recall. The systems hold a range of standard letters for
       informing patients and their GPs of the results, with
       reinforcement of information on signs and symptoms to look out
       for and key contact details for worries or concerns. Abnormal or
       equivocal results usually trigger review at the next
       multidisciplinary team meeting when a management plan is agreed.
       The 3 general choices of system will be to use existing IT
       system functionality, develop a bespoke solution or select an
       externally developed solution. An example of the latter is the
       IT solution sponsored by NHS Improvement that can be interfaced
       with cancer and other diagnostic systems in any NHS
       organisation. This is available to trusts via North Bristol NHS
       Trust who host, support and develop the system. It is funded
       through a service-level agreement (£5000 per annum) covering
       support and maintenance with each participating organisation. A
       similar solution is available via other system suppliers such as
       Chameleon Information Management Services who own the InfoFlex
       system. This is available free to InfoFlex users although some
       trusts have required consultancy support from InfoFlex for
       set-up and interface work. The purchase of additional user
       licences may also be required.
       All solutions require IT and project management resources for
       set-up to ensure that both the technical and operational
       arrangements are fit for purpose. Ongoing costs associated with
       managing patients remotely in place of face-to-face follow-up
       are negotiated locally with commissioners. A return on
       investment based on released outpatient resources would normally
       be expected within 1 to 2 years, but this would depend on the
       system used and the scope of patients selected for the pathway.
       For further information:
  HTML http://arms.evidence.nhs.uk/resources/qipp/1029456/attachment
       *****************************************************