Electronic versions

  • Simon N. Rogers
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Christine Allmark
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Fazilet Bekiroglu
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
  • Gillon Fabbroni
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Robert Flavel
    Ministerial Training Department of the Diocese of Guildford
  • Victoria Highet
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Michael W. S. Ho
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Gerald M. Humphris
    University of St. Andrews
  • Terry M. Jones
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Owais Khattak
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Jeffrey Lancaster
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Christopher Loh
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Derek Lowe
    Astraglobe Ltd
  • Cher Lowies
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Dominic Macareavy
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • James Moor
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • T. K. Ong
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • A. Prasai
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Nicholas Roland
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Cherith Semple
    Ulster University
  • Llinos Haf Spencer
  • Sank Tandon
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Steven J. Thomas
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Andrew Schache
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Richard J. Shaw
    Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  • Anastasios Kanatas
    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Abstract: Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to present baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and HRQOL in the two groups of the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) trial. The baseline PCI data will also be described. Methods: This is a pragmatic cluster preference randomised control trial with 15 consultant clusters from two sites either ‘using' (n = 8) or ‘not using’ (n = 7) the PCI at a clinic for all of their trial patients. The PCI is a 56-item prompt list that helps patients raise concerns that otherwise might be missed. Eligibility was head and neck cancer patients treated with curative intent (all sites, stage of disease, treatments). Results: From 511 patients first identified as eligible when screening for the multi-disciplinary tumour board meetings, 288 attended a first routine outpatient baseline study clinic after completion of their treatment, median (IQR) of 103 (71–162) days. At baseline, the two trial groups were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics as well as in HRQOL measures apart from differences in tumour location, tumour staging and mode of treatment. These exceptions were cluster (consultant) related to Maxillofacial and ENT consultants seeing different types of cases. Consultation times were similar, with PCI group times taking about 1 min longer on average (95% CL for the difference between means was from − 0.7 to + 2.2 min). Conclusion: Using the PCI in routine post-treatment head and neck cancer clinics do not elongate consultations. Recruitment has finished but 12-month follow-up is still ongoing.

Keywords

  • Head and Neck, Head and neck cancer, Intervention, Prompt list, Health-related quality of life, Randomised trial, Patient concerns inventory, Cluster preference
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3435-3447
Number of pages13
JournalEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Volume277
Issue number12
Early online date1 Jun 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020
View graph of relations