A pre-post test evaluation of the impact of the PELICAN MDT-TME development programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members

Background - The PELICAN Multidisciplinary Team Total Mesorectal Excision (MDT-TME) Development Programme aimed to improve clinical outcomes for rectal cancer by educating colorectal cancer teams in precision surgery and related aspects of multidisciplinary care. The Programme reached almost all colorectal cancer teams across England. We took the opportunity to assess the impact of participating in this novel team-based Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members. Methods - The impact of participating in the programme on team members' self-reported job stress, job satisfaction and team performance was assessed in a pre-post course study. 333/568 (59%) team members, from the 75 multidisciplinary teams who attended the final year of the Programme, completed questionnaires pre-course, and 6-8 weeks post-course. Results - Across all team members, the main sources of job satisfaction related to working in multidisciplinary teams; whilst feeling overloaded was the main source of job stress. Surgeons and clinical nurse specialists reported higher levels of job satisfaction than team members who do not provide direct patient care, whilst MDT coordinators reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and job stress. Both job stress and satisfaction decreased after participating in the Programme for all team members. There was a small improvement in team performance. Conclusions - Participation in the Development Programme had a mixed impact on the working lives of team members in the immediate aftermath of attending. The decrease in team members' job stress may reflect the improved knowledge and skills conferred by the Programme. The decrease in job satisfaction may be the consequence of being unable to apply these skills immediately in clinical practice because of a lack of required infrastructure and/or equipment. In addition, whilst the Programme raised awareness of the challenges of teamworking, a greater focus on tackling these issues may have improved working lives further.

Clinical characteristics of patients with epilepsy in a specialist neuropsychiatry service

Neuropsychiatry services provide specialist input into the assessment and management of behavioral symptoms associated with a range of neurological conditions, including epilepsy. Despite the centrality of epilepsy to neuropsychiatry and the recent expansion of neuropsychiatry service provision, little is known about the clinical characteristics of patients with epilepsy who are routinely seen by a specialist neuropsychiatry service. This retrospective study filled this gap by retrospectively evaluating a naturalistic series of 60 consecutive patients with epilepsy referred to and assessed within a neuropsychiatry setting. Fifty-two patients (86.7%) had active epilepsy and were under the ongoing care of the referring neurologist for seizure management. The majority of patients (N = 42; 70.0%) had a diagnosis of localization-related epilepsy, with temporal lobe epilepsy as the most common epilepsy type (N = 37; 61.7%). Following clinical assessment, 39 patients (65.0%) fulfilled formal diagnostic criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder; nonepileptic attack disorder (N = 37; 61.7%), major depression (N = 23; 38.3%), and generalized anxiety disorder (N = 16; 26.7%) were the most commonly diagnosed comorbidities. The clinical characteristics of patients seen in specialist neuropsychiatry settings are in line with the results from previous studies in neurology clinics in terms of both epilepsy and psychiatric comorbidity. Our findings confirm the need for the development and implementation of structured care pathways for the neuropsychiatric aspects of epilepsy, with focus on comorbid nonepileptic attacks and affective and anxiety symptoms. This is of particular importance in consideration of the impact of behavioral symptoms on patients' health-related quality of life.

Specialist contact lens fitting

What is meant by the term ‘specialist contact lens fitting’? Or put another way, what would be considered non-specialist contact lens fitting? Is there such a thing as routine contact lens fitting? Soft or silicone hydrogel fitting for daily wear would probably be considered as routine contact lens fitting, but would extended or flexible wear remain in the same category or would they be considered a specialist fit? Different eras will classify different products as being ‘specialist’. Certainly twenty years ago soft toric contact lenses were considered as being speciality lenses but today would be thought of as routine lenses. Conversely, gas permeable lenses were thought of as mainstream twenty years ago but now are considered as speciality lenses. Although this would not be the same globally, as in some countries (such as Netherlands, France and Japan) gas permeable lens fitting remains popular and is not on the decline as in other countries (Canada, Australia and Sweden) [1]. Bandage soft lenses applied after surface laser refractive procedures would be considered as therapeutic lenses but in reality they are just plano thin hydrogel lenses worn constantly for 3–4 days to allow the underlying epithelium to convalesce and are then removed [2]. Some patients find that wearing hydrogel lenses during periods when they suffer from seasonal allergies actually improves their ocular comfort as the contact lens acts as a barrier to the allergen [3] and [4]. Scleral lenses have long been considered speciality lenses, apart from a time when they were the only lenses available but at that time all contact lens work would have been considered speciality practice! Nowadays we see the advent of mini-scleral designs and we see large diameter gas permeable lenses too. It is possible that these lenses increase the popularity of gas permeable lenses again and they become more main stream. So it would seem that the lines between routine and speciality contact lens fitting are not clear. Whether a lens is classed a specialist fit or not would depend on the lens type, why it was fitted, where in the world the fitting was being done and even the era in which it was fitted. This begs the question as to what would be considered entry level knowledge in contact lens fitting. This may not be an issue for most BCLA members or CLAE readers but certainly would be for bodies such as the College of Optometrists (UK) or the Association of British Dispensing Opticians when they are planning the final registration examinations for budding practitioners or when planning the level of higher level qualifications such as College Certificates or Diplomas. Similarly for training institutions when they are planning their course content. This becomes even trickier when trying to devise a qualification that spans across many countries, like the European Diploma in Optometry and Optics. How do we know if the training and examination level is correct? One way would be to analyse things when they go wrong and if patterns of malpractice are seen then maybe that could be used as an indicator to more training being needed. There were 162 Fitness to Practice Hearing at the General Optical Council between 2001 and 2010. Forty-seven of these were clinically related case, 39 fraud related, and 76 others. Of the clinical ones only 3 were contact lens related. So it would appear that as whole, in the profession, contact lens clinical skills are not being questioned too often (although it seems a few of us can’t keep our hands out the cookie jar!).