CONTEXT: High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care. METHODS: The Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary. RESULTS: Representatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics. DISCUSSION: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.
CONTEXT: High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care. METHODS: The Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary. RESULTS: Representatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics. DISCUSSION: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.
Authors: Ronald M Epstein; Peter Franks; Kevin Fiscella; Cleveland G Shields; Sean C Meldrum; Richard L Kravitz; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: A J Breugom; P G Boelens; C B M van den Broek; A Cervantes; E Van Cutsem; H J Schmoll; V Valentini; C J H van de Velde Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Vincenzo Valentini; Cynthia Aristei; Bengt Glimelius; Bruce D Minsky; Regina Beets-Tan; Jose M Borras; Karin Haustermans; Philippe Maingon; Jens Overgaard; Lars Pahlman; Phil Quirke; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; David Sebag-Montefiore; Irving Taylor; Eric Van Cutsem; Cornelius Van de Velde; Numa Cellini; Paolo Latini Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: V Tudyka; L Blomqvist; R G H Beets-Tan; P G Boelens; V Valentini; C J van de Velde; A Dieguez; G Brown Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Camille Maringe; Sarah Walters; Bernard Rachet; John Butler; Tony Fields; Paul Finan; Roy Maxwell; Bjørn Nedrebø; Lars Påhlman; Annika Sjövall; Allan Spigelman; Gerda Engholm; Anna Gavin; Marianne L Gjerstorff; Juanita Hatcher; Tom B Johannesen; Eva Morris; Colleen E McGahan; Elizabeth Tracey; Donna Turner; Michael A Richards; Michel P Coleman Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Cornelis J H van de Velde; Cynthia Aristei; Petra G Boelens; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Lennart Blomqvist; Josep M Borras; Colette B M van den Broek; Gina Brown; Jan-Willem Coebergh; Eric Van Cutsem; Eloy Espin; Jola Gore-Booth; Bengt Glimelius; Karin Haustermans; Geoffrey Henning; Lene H Iversen; J Han van Krieken; Corrie A M Marijnen; Pawel Mroczkowski; Iris Nagtegaal; Peter Naredi; Hector Ortiz; Lars Påhlman; Philip Quirke; Claus Rödel; Arnaud Roth; Harm J T Rutten; Hans J Schmoll; Jason Smith; Pieter J Tanis; Claire Taylor; Arne Wibe; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Elisa Meldolesi; Theo Wiggers; Andres Cervantes; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: C J H van de Velde; P G Boelens; P J Tanis; E Espin; P Mroczkowski; P Naredi; L Pahlman; H Ortiz; H J Rutten; A J Breugom; J J Smith; A Wibe; T Wiggers; V Valentini Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Peep F M Stalmeier; Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Emile N J Th van Lin; Erik Schimmel; Henk Huizenga; Willem A J van Daal; Jan-Willem Leer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cornelis J H van de Velde; Petra G Boelens; Josep M Borras; Jan-Willem Coebergh; Andres Cervantes; Lennart Blomqvist; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Colette B M van den Broek; Gina Brown; Eric Van Cutsem; Eloy Espin; Karin Haustermans; Bengt Glimelius; Lene H Iversen; J Han van Krieken; Corrie A M Marijnen; Geoffrey Henning; Jola Gore-Booth; Elisa Meldolesi; Pawel Mroczkowski; Iris Nagtegaal; Peter Naredi; Hector Ortiz; Lars Påhlman; Philip Quirke; Claus Rödel; Arnaud Roth; Harm Rutten; Hans J Schmoll; Jason J Smith; Pieter J Tanis; Claire Taylor; Arne Wibe; Theo Wiggers; Maria A Gambacorta; Cynthia Aristei; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sean Grant; Glen S Hazlewood; Holly L Peay; Ann Lucas; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink; Dmitry Khodyakov Journal: Patient Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.883