Clinical research fellow Bhavani Adizie looks at the results from the National Lung Cancer Audit's second organisational audit and how they compare to results from 2014.
In May 2017, we announced that we were about to embark on the second National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) organisational audit. Now that 2017 has whizzed by, you may be wondering what we have done and what our results were. Having briefly outlined some of the key results at the British Thoracic Society (BTS) lung cancer and mesothelioma specialty advisory group (SAG) meeting, I would like to now share our results with you in more detail.
We conducted the second organisational audit in 2017 because the first organisational audit (completed in 2014) demonstrated significant variation in access to diagnostics, treatment modalities and treatment specialists. The results of the first audit were published in Thorax and concluded with five recommendations. The second audit reassessed how we are doing against those recommendations, with the aim of guiding policy and recommendations about the minimum requirements that make a safe and effective lung cancer service.
In March 2017 we updated the survey questions, based on feedback from the first audit, and we developed a bespoke online survey tool and accompanying ‘help notes’. The survey was piloted at five sites and it was further modified according to the feedback we received. The survey went live in June 2017 and the response rate was 86%, which was an improvement from the 57% response rate for the 2014 survey (thank you to all the teams that participated!). The process of data checking and verification began, and we found a wide variability in staffing reporting. To gain an accurate picture, we emailed all lung cancer clinical leads to ask them to verify their data. In total, 97 units were contacted, with a 35% response rate.
Figure 1 (available to download below) compares the second organisational audit results with the 2014 audit recommendations. Other interesting key results include the following.
We also looked at how units are doing compared with the standards set out in the newly published national commissioning guidance. This is summarised in Figure 2 (available to download below).
Access to some diagnostics is improving, such as the availability of on-site EBUS. However, there is still unwarranted variation in resources.
Access to some diagnostics is improving, such as the availability of on-site EBUS. However, there is still unwarranted variation in resources, particularly in terms of staffing provision. Therefore, we have made the following four recommendations that align with the national commissioning guidance.
We are in exciting times for lung cancer research, with improvements in diagnostics and treatments occurring at an impressive pace.
We will soon send units their individual results and explain how they compare with the national results. I hope that the results will allow MDTs to begin discussions with local commissioners / hospital managers about how local resources and staffing can be improved to align with the recommendations.
We are in exciting times for lung cancer research, with improvements in diagnostics and treatments occurring at an impressive pace. However, in order for our patients to get the best out of this modern practice of thoracic oncology, we need to ensure that our workforce and resources are organised to allow all patients to have timely access to diagnostics and treatments.
The results from the stroke organisational audit contributed to a change in the organisation of stroke services, which was shown to improve patient outcomes. If stroke can do it, so can we!
Bhavani Adizie, clinical research fellow with the NLCA team