Search

Background: A pilot rapid diagnosis centre (RDC) allows GPs within targeted clusters to refer adults with vague and/or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, who do not meet criteria for referral under an urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway, to a multidisciplinary RDC clinic where they are seen within 1 week.Aim: To explore the cost-effectiveness of the RDC compared with standard clinical practice.Design and Setting: Cost-effectiveness modelling using routine data from Neath Port Talbot Hospital, Wales.Method: Discrete-event simulation modelled a cohort of 1000 patients from referral to radiological diagnosis based on routine RDC and hospital data. Control patients were those referred to a USC pathway but then downgraded. Published sources provided estimates of patient quality of life (QoL) and pre-diagnosis anxiety. The model calculates time to diagnosis, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and estimates the probability of the RDC being a cost-effective strategy.Results: The RDC reduces mean time to diagnosis from 84.2 days in usual care to 5.9 days if a diagnosis is made at clinic, or 40.8 days if further investigations are booked during RDC. RDC provision is the superior strategy (that is, less costly and more effective) compared with standard clinical practice when run near or at full capacity. However, it is not cost-effective if capacity utilisation drops below 80%.Conclusion: An RDC for patients presenting with vague or non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer in primary care reduces time to diagnosis and provides excellent value for money if run at ≥80% capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An uncontrolled study with process evaluation was conducted in three U.K. community maternity sites to establish the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a novel breastfeeding peer‐support intervention informed by motivational interviewing (MI; Mam‐Kind). Peer‐supporters were trained to deliver the Mam‐Kind intervention that provided intensive one‐to‐one peer‐support, including (a) antenatal contact, (b) face‐to‐face contact within 48 hr of birth, (c) proactive (peer‐supporter led) alternate day contact for 2 weeks after birth, and (d) mother‐led contact for a further 6 weeks. Peer‐supporters completed structured diaries and audio‐recorded face‐to‐face sessions with mothers. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of mothers, health professionals, and all peer‐supporters. Interview data were analysed thematically to assess intervention acceptability. Audio‐recorded peer‐support sessions were assessed for intervention fidelity and the use of MI techniques, using the MITI 4.2 tool. Eight peer‐supporters delivered the Mam‐Kind intervention to 70 mothers in three National Health Service maternity services. Qualitative interviews with mothers (n = 28), peer‐supporters (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 12) indicated that the intervention was acceptable, and health professionals felt it could be integrated with existing services. There was high fidelity to intervention content; 93% of intervention objectives were met during sessions. However, peer‐supporters reported difficulties in adapting from an expert‐by‐experience role to a collaborative role. We have established the feasibility and acceptability of providing breastfeeding peer‐support using a MI‐informed approach. Refinement of the intervention is needed to further develop peer‐supporters' skills in providing mother‐centred support. The refined intervention should be tested for effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]