Introduction Due to the pandemic of COVID-19 a number of National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in the UK adopted telephone consultations for patients who were shielding. As the pandemic continues to affect these services an evaluation was conducted to determine whether telephone consultations implemented during the pandemic should be maintained long term. The objective was to evaluate this new service and to understand patient experience. Methods This study was conducted via a telephone survey. Staff working in the Macmillan centres across the Trust called patients to survey them about their experience of telephone consultations. Data were collected 23/06/20 – 17/07/20. A mix of eight open and closed questions were asked. Data were collected on an Excel spreadsheet and patient identifiable information was anonymised. Results 55 patients accepted to participate in this study. Out of 55, 39 patients rated the phone consultation they had as either 4 or 5 out of 5. When asked if they would like to continue with phone clinics 33 said they would. The majority of consultations were conducted by doctors (43/55). Patients commented they had received great support from their healthcare professionals and they felt that phone consultations were safer in the current climate. Three of the patients felt the calls were rushed and others found it difficult to discuss pain management, sides effects and post-surgery issues. Conclusions This evaluation provides a brief snapshot of the experience cancer patients are having with phone clinics. A re-evaluation will take place once video consultations are implemented.

Administration of chemotherapy is moving into the community as more and more therapies to treat cancer are being developed as oral medications. Patients taking these oral medications still require support, as many of these agents can be toxic. This support could be simple side effect management, compliance issues or even reassurance with regards to their diagnosis as examples. Community pharmacies are ideally placed within the community to help these patients. The purpose of this review is to determine what support community pharmacies are currently providing for patients taking oral anticancer medication and if there is a model that can be adopted or adapted to be used elsewhere. Searches were undertaken using two databases, Medline and Embase. Other evidence-based articles were discovered from other sources. The different services currently available from community pharmacies were largely varied. There are some key aspects to each which could be used in the development of a new model. Further research is required to determine the views of the patients, carers and community pharmacy staff.

Objectives This study analyses data from local qualitative interviewing about what matters most to patients with information from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) to formulate an accurate improvement plan. This study seeks to provide a deeper analysis of the results of the 2019 NCPES. Methods Qualitative data were collected through a focus group, telephone and virtual interviews from patients in North East London. Ten questions from the NCPES were asked. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an NVivo framework matrix. The results were analysed considering the 2019 National Cancer Patient Experience report. Key findings In total, 17 patients and 4 carers participated. The interview answers provided a more in-depth response when compared with the NCPES results, allowing for a deeper understanding of patient experience. This provided an insightful understanding of what matters most to our patients. Conclusions The NCPES results are not always reflective of the patient population. Limitations of the survey make it hard for healthcare providers to develop accurate improvement plans. It is important to use other data sources such as qualitative interviewing alongside the NCPES. The data collated during this study have been used to identify themes and deliverables for achievable and sustainable improvements to be made.

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many aspects of clinical practice in oncology, particularly in making timely cancer diagnosis. Our public health system has been concerned about potential delays leading to a higher proportion of patients with advanced stages. Our cancer diagnosis fast-track program (CFP) in the Clinic-Malvarrosa Health department in Valencia (Spain) is connecting primary care (PC) with different specialists to speed cancer diagnosis and treatment upon well founded suspicion. A 10-year evaluation of our CFP has recently been published. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the CFP. Methods:We analysed the programme flow during the state of emergency starting on March 16, 2020 for one year.Results: During that year, 975 suspected cancer cases were submitted to the CFP. The submissions only decreased during the times of highest COVID-19 incidence and stricter lockdown (March, April and October 2020). However, referrals were slightly higher than in the two previous years (average 877). Of those 975 patients, 817 were seen by the corresponding specialist. A cancer diagnosis was confirmed in 197 (24.1%) with 33% urological, 23% breast, 16% gastrointestinal and 9% lung cancer. Median time from referral to the specialist visit was 13 (interquartile range, 8 to 22 days) days and a diagnosis was reached in a median of 18 days (interquartile range, 10 to 30 days). In cancer patients, treatment was started in around 30 days (interquartile range, 13.5 to 51 days) from the time of diagnosis. Sixty-one percent of cancers were found in an early stage, 20% in a locally advanced stage, and 19% in an advanced stage. These intervals and proportions were similar to the previous years.Conclusions: Our programme has proven to be a reliable tool to help PC physicians referring patients with cancer suspicion cancer, maintaining its normal flow and efficacy despite the current pandemic.Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors.