Search

The UK Medical Cannabis Registry is the largest real world data platform for medical cannabis outcomes in the UK, providing insight into clinical outcomes and monitoring safety of this novel therapy. This study aims to assess the functionality and accessibility of the online data collection platform and patient priorities for future research. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantitative data. For open-ended questions an inductive thematic analysis was performed. 600 responses were recorded. 554 (92.3%) patients had used the platform. 272 (90.4%) patients believed it was easy to input medications. 52 (8.67%) patients recorded an adverse event with 38 (73.1%) finding it easy to record. 535 (96.6%) patients had completed health questionnaires with 490 (91.6%) patients finding this easy to do. 553 (92.2%) patients agreed that contributing to the registry would impact the medical care of future patients. "Assessing the impact of medical cannabis on quality of life generally" was the top research priority for 357 (59.3%) patients. This study demonstrates that most enrolled patients found the platform easy to use and believed they were positively impacting future medical cannabis patient care. Future patient research priorities included assessment of quality of life and condition-specific outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this work was to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' and their family members' views on acceptability and feasibility of patient‐initiated follow‐up (PIFU), including concerns and anticipated benefits. Methods: Patients were recruited from UK HNC clinics, support groups and advocacy groups. They completed a survey (n = 144) and/or qualitative interview (n = 30), three with a family member. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, quantitative data using descriptive statistics. Results: Preference for follow‐up care in HNC was complex and individual. Many patients thought PIFU could beneficially reallocate health care resources and encourage self‐management. Patients' main concerns with PIFU were losing the reassurance of regular clinic appointments and addressing mental well‐being needs within PIFU, possibly using peer support. Patients were concerned about their ability to detect recurrence due to lack of expertise and information. They emphasised the importance of a reliable, direct and easy urgent appointment service and of feeling supported and heard by clinicians. Patients believed family and friends need support. Conclusion: PIFU may be feasible and acceptable for certain HNC patients, providing it addresses support for mental well‐being, provides quick, reliable and direct clinician access and information on "red flag" symptoms, and ensures patients and their caregivers feel supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To quantify patient eligibility for cochlear implantation following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2019 guidelines (TA566) over five years at our institution, and identify factors influencing patients' decisions surrounding cochlear implantation referral. Methods: A multi-perspective service evaluation was conducted at a district general hospital, comprising cochlear implantation eligible patients. The main outcome measures were: eligibility numbers for 2014–2019, comparing application of TA566 versus 2009 (TA166) guidelines; and patient interview transcripts and questionnaires. Results: There was a 259 per cent average increase in cochlear implantation eligibility from 2014 to 2019. Most patients' thresholds were 80 dB HL or more at 3 kHz and 4 kHz. There are several cochlear implantation barriers, including patient-centred issues (e.g. health-related anxieties, implantation misperceptions) and external barriers (difficulty getting to regional implant centres). Motivating factors for cochlear implantation include improved quality of life and access to local cochlear implantation services. Conclusion: The TA566 guidelines have increased cochlear implantation eligibility, putting pressure on cochlear implantation centres and referring hospitals. Current referral systems have external and patient-centred implantation barriers. British cochlear implantation delivery may need rethinking to meet increasing populational demands and improve accessibility for those most vulnerable to these barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]