Nurse-led active surveillance for prostate cancer is safe, effective and associated with high rates of patient satisfaction-results of an audit in the East of England

Estelle Martin, Satyendra Persaud, John Corr, Rowan Casey, Rajiv Pillai, Estelle Martin, Satyendra Persaud, John Corr, Rowan Casey, Rajiv Pillai

Abstract

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) is an option in the management of men with low-stage, low-risk prostate cancer. These patients, who often require prolonged follow-up, can put a strain on outpatient resources. Nurses are ideally placed to develop advanced roles to help meet this increased demand-a model we have utilised since 2014. We set about to comprehensively evaluate our nurse-led AS (NLAS) programme.

Patients and methods: An audit of patient notes was carried out to assess compliance with trust and national guidelines. A questionnaire was designed to capture patients' experiences of NLAS. This was piloted and then distributed to all patients in our NLAS programme. A second questionnaire was designed to assess the views of stakeholders within the department.

Results: Compliance with various aspects of local guidelines ranged from 88.8% to 100%. 143 patients are currently in the programme with a mean duration of AS of 37.03 months. 104 questionnaires were returned. Most of the patients were aware of the role of the nurse prior to their visit, and all were happy to meet with a nurse. All of the patients indicated their confidence in the nurse monitoring their prostate-specific antigen. Among those requiring further investigations, 85.3% were happy with the information they received prior to their tests. Overall, 96.2% were either very satisfied or satisfied with NLAS. All stakeholders held positive views about NLAS.

Conclusions: NLAS is safe and effective. Patients and stakeholders alike held positive views of the programme.

Keywords: active surveillance; nurse-led; prostate cancer.

References

    1. Prostate Cancer UK. About prostate cancer. 2016. [01/05/18]. [ ]
    1. Klotz L. Prostate cancer over diagnosis and over treatment. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabet Obes. 2013;20(3):204–209. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e328360332a.
    1. Sturch P, Kirby R, Challacombe B. Active surveillance for men with low risk prostate cancer. Trends Urol Mens Health. 2014. [01/05/18]. [ ]
    1. Ayres B, Montgomery B, Barber N, et al. The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in re staging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int. 2011;109:1170–1176. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10480.x.
    1. Carter G, Clover K, Britton B, et al. Well-being during active surveillance for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:46–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.11.001.
    1. Klotz L. Active surveillance for men with low risk, clinically localised prostate cancer. 2016. [01/05/18]. Up to Date 2016 [ ]
    1. National Institute for Care and Health Excellence. Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and treatment. 2014. [01/05/18]. [ ]
    1. van den Bergh R, Essink-Bot M, Roobol M, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3868–3878. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24446.
    1. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L. Active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer: an update. [01/05/18];Nat Rev Urol. 2011 8:312–320. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2011.50. [ ]
    1. Ehdaie B, Assel M, Benfante N, et al. A systematic approach to discussing active surveillance with patients with low risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:866–871. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.026.
    1. Madsen L. An integrative review of nursing research on active surveillance in the older adult prostate cancer population. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2013;40(4):374–382. doi: 10.1188/13.ONF.40-04AP.
    1. Shaida N, Jones C, Ravindranath N, et al. Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone consultation for the follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2007;10:369–373. doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500958.
    1. Watson E, Shinkins B, Frith E, et al. Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up. BJU Int. 2015;117:E10–19. doi: 10.1111/bju.13122.
    1. Department of Health. Modernising nursing careers; setting the direction. 2006. [04/05/18]. [ ]
    1. Department of Health. Cancer reform strategy. 2007. [04/05/18]. [ ]
    1. Department of Health. High quality care for all. 2008. [04/05/18]. [ ]
    1. Streeter E, Brewster S. NICE guidelines on prostate cancer active surveillance: is UK practice leading the world? BJU Int. 2014;115(1):12–13. doi: 10.1111/bju.12752.
    1. Phillipou Y, Raja H, Gnanapragasam V. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: a questionnaire survey of urologists, clinical oncologists and urology nurse specialists across three cancer networks in the United Kingdom. [30/04/18];BMC Urol. 2015 15:52. doi: 10.1186/s12894-015-0049-y. [ ]
    1. Quality Health Limited. National Cancer patient experience survey. 2015. [30/04/18]. [ ]
    1. Baker R, Sinfield P, Agarwal S, et al. The development of the prostate care questionnaires for patients (PCQ-P) and carers (PCQ-C) prostate cancer care; improving measures of the patient experience. 2008. [30/04/18]. [ ]
    1. Wade J, Holding P, Bonnington S. Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial. BMJ Open. 2015. [01/05/18].
    1. Department of Health and NHS Commissioning Board. Compassion in practice; nursing, midwifery and care staff our vision and strategy. 2012. [30/04/18]. [ ]
    1. Jones S. Nurse-led clinic for men receiving targeted therapies for metastatic hormone relapsed prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2016;15(5):32–36. doi: 10.7748/cnp.15.5.32.s23.
    1. Lewis R, Neal R, Williams N, et al. Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(4):706–723. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04927.x.
    1. Faithfull S, Corner J, Meyer L, et al. Evaluation of nurse-led follow up for patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(12):1853–1864. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2173.
    1. Lane L, Minns S. Empowering advanced practitioners to set up nurse led clinics for improved outpatient care. [04/05/18];Nursing Times. 2010 106:13. [ ]
    1. Farrell C. Developing and evaluating nurse led clinics. In: Farrell C, editor. Advanced Nursing Practice and Nurse-Led Clinics in Oncology. London: Routledge; 2016. pp. 99–115.
    1. Frew L, Leung S. The Fife hormone service for prostate cancer patients: a cost effective and patient centric model. Int J Urol Nurs. 2015;9(2):114–118. doi: 10.1111/ijun.12078.
    1. McGlynn B, White L, Smith K, et al. A service evaluation describing a nurse-led prostate cancer service in NHS, Ayrshire and Arran. Int J Urol. 2014;8(3):166–180. doi: 10.1111/ijun.12049.
    1. Leahy M, Krishnasamy M, Herschtal A, et al. Satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow up for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy. A comparative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17:162–169. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.04.003.
    1. James N, McPhail G. The success of a nurse-led, one-stop suspected prostate cancer clinic. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2008;7:28–32. doi: 10.7748/cnp2008.04.7.3.28.c6460.
    1. Turner B, Wells P. Evaluating the efficacy of a telephone follow-up clinic. Cancer Nurs Pract. 2012;11(1):32–35. doi: 10.7748/cnp2012.02.11.1.32.c8939.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir