Paul Beckett

The European initiative for quality management in lung cancer care

Lung cancer is the commonest cause of cancer-related death worldwide and poses a significant respiratory disease burden. Little is known about the provision of lung cancer care across Europe. The overall aim of the Task Force was to investigate current practice in lung cancer care across Europe. The Task Force undertook four projects: 1) a narrative literature search on quality management of lung cancer; 2) a survey of national and local infrastructure for lung cancer care in Europe; 3) a benchmarking project on the quality of (inter)national lung cancer guidelines in Europe; and 4) a feasibility study of prospective data collection in a pan-European setting. There is little peer-reviewed literature on quality management in lung cancer care. The survey revealed important differences in the infrastructure of lung cancer care in Europe. The European guidelines that were assessed displayed wide variation in content and scope, as well as methodological quality but at the same time there was relevant duplication. The feasibility study demonstrated that it is, in principle, feasible to collect prospective demographic and clinical data on patients with lung cancer. Legal obligations vary among countries. The European Initiative for Quality Management in Lung Cancer Care has provided the first comprehensive snapshot of lung cancer care in Europe. European initiative on quality management in lung cancer: first systematic snapshot on lung cancer care in Europe http://ow.ly/tHfIF

Clinical management of older people with non-small cell lung cancer in England

Data for 25261 patients with non-small cell lung cancer whose details were submitted to the National Lung Cancer Audit in England were analysed to assess the effect of age at diagnosis on their clinical management, after accounting for sex, stage, performance status and comorbidity. Multivariate logistic regression showed the odds of having histocytological confirmation and anticancer treatment decreased progressively with age, and was also lower in women. It is likely that these results have a multifactorial explanation, and further research into the attitudes of patients, carers and healthcare professionals, and clinical trials of treatment in older populations, are necessary.

Risk factors and survival outcome for non-elective referral in non-small cell lung cancer patients - Analysis based on the National Lung Cancer Audit

INTRODUCTIONnSurvival after diagnosis of lung cancer is poor and seemingly lower in the UK than other Western countries, due in large part to late presentation with advanced disease precluding curative treatment. Recent research suggests that around one-third of lung cancer patients reach specialist care after emergency presentation and have a worse survival outcome. Confirmation of these data and understanding which patients are affected may allow a targeted approach to improving outcomes.nnnMETHODSnWe used data from the UK National Lung Cancer Audit in a multivariate logistic regression model to quantify the association of non-elective referral in non-small cell lung cancer patients with covariates including age, sex, stage, performance status, co-morbidity and socioeconomic status and used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model to quantify survival by source of referral.nnnRESULTSnIn an analysis of 133,530 cases of NSCLC who presented 2006-2011, 19% of patients were referred non-electively (following an emergency admission to hospital or following an emergency presentation to A&E). This route of referral was strongly associated with more advanced disease stage (e.g. in Stage IV - OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 2.14-2.57, p<0.001) and worse performance status (e.g. in PS 4 - OR: 7.28, 95% CI: 6.75-7.86, p<0.001), but was also independently associated with worse socioeconomic status, and extremes of age. These patients were more likely to have died within 1 year of diagnosis (hazard ratio of 1.51 (95% CI: 1.49-1.54) after adjustment for key clinical variables.nnnCONCLUSIONnOur data confirm and quantify poorer survival in lung cancer patients who are referred non-electively to specialist care, which is more common in patients with poorer performance status, higher disease stage and less advantaged socioeconomic status. Work to tackle this late presentation should be urgently accelerated, since its realisation holds the promise of improved outcomes and better healthcare resource utilisation.

Inequalities in outcomes for non-small cell lung cancer: the role of the MDT

Rich et al 1 report that non-small cell lung cancer patients first seen in a hospital which has on-site thoracic surgical services are more likely to have surgical treatment of their tumour. However, it is not clear what aspects of ‘being a surgical centre’ are crucial to increasing resection rates. Numerous reports have documented a volume–outcome relationship for complex surgical and medical care and …

Which patients are assessed by lung cancer nurse specialists? A national lung cancer audit study of over 128,000 patients across england.

BACKGROUNDnLung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are integral to the multidisciplinary clinical team, providing personalised physical and psycho-social interventions, and care management for people with lung cancer. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that all patients have access to a LCNS. We conducted a national study assessing whether there is variation in access to and timing of LCNS assessment.nnnMETHODSnThe National Cancer Action Teams LCNS workforce census in England was linked with patient and hospital Trust data from the English National Lung Cancer Audit. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess features associated with LCNS assessment.nnnRESULTSn128,124 lung cancer patients were seen from 2007 to 2011. LCNS assessment confirmation was yes in 62%, no in 6% and missing in 32%. Where (in clinic versus ward) and when (before versus after diagnosis) patients were assessed by a LCNS also varied. Older patients with poor performance status, early cancer stage, and comorbidities were less likely to be assessed; there was no difference with sex or socioeconomic group. Patients receiving any anti-cancer treatment were more likely to be assessed. Assessment was lower in Trusts with high annual patient numbers (odds ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.91) and where LCNS caseload>250 (0.69, 0.41-1.16, although not statistically significant), but increased where workload was conducted mostly by band 8 nurses (2.22, 1.22-4.02).nnnCONCLUSIONnLCNS assessment varied by patient and Trust features, which may indicate unmet need for some patients. The current workforce needs to expand as well as retain experienced LCNSs.

Apples and pears? A comparison of two sources of national lung cancer audit data in England

In 2014, the method of data collection from NHS trusts in England for the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) was changed from a bespoke dataset called LUCADA (Lung Cancer Data). Under the new contract, data are submitted via the Cancer Outcome and Service Dataset (COSD) system and linked additional cancer registry datasets. In 2014, trusts were given opportunity to submit LUCADA data as well as registry data. 132 NHS trusts submitted LUCADA data, and all 151 trusts submitted COSD data. This transitional year therefore provided the opportunity to compare both datasets for data completeness and reliability. We linked the two datasets at the patient level to assess the completeness of key patient and treatment variables. We also assessed the interdata agreement of these variables using Cohens kappa statistic, κ. We identified 26u200a001 patients in both datasets. Overall, the recording of sex, age, performance status and stage had more than 90% agreement between datasets, but there were more patients with missing performance status in the registry dataset. Although levels of agreement for surgery, chemotherapy and external-beam radiotherapy were high between datasets, the new COSD system identified more instances of active treatment. There seems to be a high agreement of data between the datasets, and the findings suggest that the registry dataset coupled with COSD provides a richer dataset than LUCADA. However, it lagged behind LUCADA in performance status recording, which needs to improve over time. New lung cancer data submission method provides a richer dataset http://ow.ly/zE5r30ceaUU

Are working practices of lung cancer nurse specialists associated with variation in peoples’ receipt of anticancer therapy?

OBJECTIVESnTreatment choices for people with lung cancer may be influenced by contact and engagement with lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNSs). We investigated how service factors, LCNS workload, and LCNS working practices may influence the receipt of anticancer treatment.nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnEnglish National Lung Cancer Audit data and inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics for 109,079 people with lung cancer surviving 30 days from diagnosis were linked along with LCNS workforce census data and a bespoke nationwide LCNS survey. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine adjusted relative risk ratios (RRRs) for receipt of anticancer therapies associated with LCNS assessment, LCNS workforce composition, caseload, LCNS reported working practices, treatment facilities at the patients attending hospitals, and the size of the lung cancer service.nnnRESULTSnAssessment by an LCNS was the strongest independent predictor for receipt of anticancer therapy, with early LCNS assessments being particularly associated with greater receipt of surgery (RRR 1.85, 95%CI 1.63-2.11). For people we considered clinically suitable for surgery, receipt was 55%. Large LCNS caseloads were associated with decreased receipt of surgery among suitable patients (RRR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51-0.97) for caseloads >250 compared to ≤150. Reported LCNS working practices were associated with receipt of surgery, particularly provision of psychological support (RRR 1.60, 95%CI 1.02-2.51) and social support (RRR 1.56, 95%CI 1.07-2.28).nnnCONCLUSIONnLCNS assessment, workload, and working practices are associated with the likelihood of patients receiving anticancer therapy. Enabling and supporting LCNSs to undertake key case management interventions offers an opportunity to improve treatment uptake and reduce the apparent gap in receipt of surgery for those suitable.

Status of Lung Cancer Data Collection in Europe

The European Union (EU) began as the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1967 with six founder members: Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The first expansion of the EEC was in 1973, when Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined, followed by Greece in 1981 and then Portugal and Spain in 1986.1 The composition and function of the EU have changed dramatically during the past 30 years along with several major political events. These include the fall of the Berlin wall (1989), the dissolution of the Union of Soviet States of Russia (1991), the division of Czechoslovakia (1993), and the break-up of Yugoslavia into seven independent countries (war torn period, 1991-2001). The number of independent countries in Europe has almost doubled, and the number members of the EU has increased from 12 to 28 (Appendix Table A1).

ERS Statement on harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe recognised the need to create a single dataset for use in pan-European data collection and a manual of standards for European lung cancer services. The multidisciplinary task force considered evidence from two different sources, reviewing existing national and international datasets alongside the results of a survey of clinical data collection on lung cancer in 35 European countries. A similar process was followed for the manual of lung cancer services, with the task force using existing guidelines and national or international recommendations for lung cancer services to develop a manual of standards for services in Europe. The task force developed essential and minimum datasets for lung cancer registration to enable all countries to collect the same essential data and some to collect data with greater detail. The task force also developed a manual specifying standards for lung cancer services in Europe. Despite the wide variation in the sociopolitical landscape across Europe, the ERS is determined to encourage the delivery of high-quality lung cancer care. Both the manual of lung cancer services and the minimum dataset for lung cancer registration will support this aspiration. Written by Europeans for Europeans, this minimum dataset and manual for lung cancer services will help to improve standards for our patients http://ow.ly/6qa630mm5bz

Barriers to delivering advanced cancer nursing: A workload analysis of specialist nurse practice linked to the English National Lung Cancer Audit

PURPOSEnHealth services across the world utilise advanced practice in cancer care. In the UK, lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are recognised as key components of quality care in national guidelines, yet access to LCNS contact is unequal and some responsibilities are reportedly left undone. We assess whether any variation in working practices of LCNS is attributable to factors of the lung cancer service at the hospital trust.nnnMETHODnNationwide workload analysis of LCNS working practices in England, linked at trust level to patient data from the National Lung Cancer Audit. Chi-squared tests were performed to assess whether patient contact, workload, involvement in multidisciplinary teams (MDT), and provision of key interventions were related to 1) the trusts lung cancer service size, 2) LCNS caseload, 3) anti-cancer treatment facilities and 4) lung cancer patient survival.nnnRESULTSnUnpaid overtime was substantial for over 60% of nurses and not associated with particular service factors assessed; lack of administrative support was associated with large caseloads and chemotherapy facilities. LCNS at trusts with no specialty were more likely to challenge all MDT members (80%) compared with those at surgical (53%) or chemotherapy (58%) trusts. The most frequent specialist nursing intervention to not be routinely offered was proactive case management.nnnCONCLUSIONnWorking practices of LCNS vary according to service factors, most frequently associated with trust anti-cancer treatment facilities. High workload pressures and limited ability to provide key interventions should be addressed across all services to ensure patients have access to recommended standards of care.