Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17508271›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2007

The Teesside cancer family history service: change management and innovation at cancer network level.

Paul Brennan, Oonagh Claber, Tracey Shaw

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Why do women not return family history forms when referred to breast cancer genetics services? A mixed-method study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul BrennanNorthern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. paul.brennan@stees.nhs.uk
Oonagh Claber
Tracey Shaw

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Teesside project took the underlying principle of the Kenilworth model--that people with a family history of cancer should be 'triaged' and signposted to appropriate clinical services--and applied it to a whole clinical cancer network in which inequity was the major driver for change. Unlike the Kenilworth model, the Department of Health/Macmillan Cancer Support-funded pilot project in Teesside embedded genetic risk assessment at secondary care level. The project took a 'bottom up' approach that engaged a wide variety of stakeholder groups and identified key challenges that formed the basis of a clear strategic plan. A number of specialist cancer nurses across the network had independently developed risk assessment roles over preceding years: these roles needed to be redefined prior to the creation of a small team of genetic risk assessment practitioners ('GRAPs'). This innovation challenged existing nursing roles on a local and national level. In turn, however, we were able to introduce a simple, single network-wide referral pathway, reducing workload on both primary care and tumour-specific services; to adopt a standardised genetic risk assessment pathway; and to incorporate risk assessment as a key step in the decision to enroll an individual in a clinical screening programme. Collaborative audit proved to be a useful way of engaging stakeholders and holding their attention throughout the three-year project, proving the value of the project in their terms, and embedding the changes we had made. The keys to success in this project were inclusiveness, transparency and clear strategic management.

Indexed as

Genetic ServicesBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansNational Health ProgramsPilot ProjectsReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.