Manual for Cancer Services 2008: Northern Ireland - Colorectal Measures

Transcription

1 National Cancer Action Team National Cancer Peer Review Programme Manual for Cancer Services 2008: Northern Ireland - Colorectal Measures

2 NORTHERN IRELAND - COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No. XXXX - JUN

3 Contents NI COLORECTAL MEASURES 1

4 08-1A-2d - COLORECTAL SPECIFIC NETWORK BOARD MEASURES Measure Number Measure N08-1A-201d Agreed named members of single NSSG N08-1A-202d Network agreed policy for diagnosis and assessment N08-1A-203d Network agreed list of named hospitals Named list of colorectal MDTs including those dealing with rectal N08-1A-204d cancer N08-1A-205d Named list of colorectal MDTs dealing with anal cancer N08-1A-206d Named list, location and type of team for resection of liver metastases N08-1A-207d NSSG/network agreed referral guidelines for anal cancer N08-1A-208d NSSG/network agreed referral guidelines for liver metastases N08-1A-210d NSSG/network agreed catchment population for liver resection 2

5 08-1C-1d - FUNCTIONS OF NETWORK SITE SPECIFIC GROUPS (NSSGs) Measure Number Measure N08-1C-101d NSSG should meet regularly and record attendance N08-1C-102d The chair of the NSSG should have an annual review Agreed NSSG referral guidelines for patient, within or outside the N08-1C-103d network N08-1C-104d NSSG/trust agreed single initial decision point for referral NSSG/network agreed protocol for prioritising appointments and N08-1C-105d referral proforma N08-1C-106d NSSG/network agreed investigation protocol NSSG/network policy on named medical practitioner with clinical N08-1C-107d responsibility N08-1C-108d NSSG/network agreed onward referral policy N08-1C-109d NSSG/MDT agreed guidelines for management of anal cancer N08-1C-110d NSSG/MDT agreed guidelines for management of rectal cancer N08-1C-111d NSSG/MDT agreed guidelines for the resection of liver metastases N08-1C-112d NSSG agreed colorectal stenting policy N08-1C-113d Named colorectal stenting personnel NSSG/MDT agreed policy on referrals for patients outside the agreed N08-1C-114d primary care referral process N08-1C-115d Distribution process for referral policy N08-1C-116d NSSG/MDT agreed guidelines for surgical emergencies N08-1C-117d Distribution process for surgical emergencies guidelines N08-1C-118d Primary care referral guidelines N08-1C-119d Assessment protocol for early rectal cancer N08-1C-120d Agreed network-wide minimum dataset (MDS) Agreed network-wide policy specifying which type of team should N08-1C-121d collect which portion of the MDS N08-1C-122d NSSG should agree at least one resourced network audit project NSSG should annually review the progress of the network audit N08-1C-123d project(s) N08-1C-124d Agreed NSSG single list of clinical trials and/or studies N08-1C-125d Agreed NSSG remedial action for recruitment into clinical trials N08-1C-126d Agreed NSSG three year service delivery plan 3

6 08-1D-1d - FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCALITY GROUP Measure Number Measure Single named lead clinician with responsibility for colorectal diagnostic N08-1D-101d service N08-1D-102d Named administrative personnel for colorectal referrals N08-1D-103d Provision and facilities for rectal endosonography service 4

7 08-2D-2 - COLORECTAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM (MDT) Measure Number N08-2D-201 N08-2D-202 N08-2D-203 N08-2D-204 N08-2D-205 N08-2D-206 N08-2D-207 N08-2D-208 N08-2D-209 N08-2D-212 N08-2D-213 N08-2D-214 N08-2D-215 N08-2D-216 N08-2D-217 N08-2D-218 N08-2D-219 N08-2D-220 N08-2D-221 N08-2D-222 N08-2D-223 N08-2D-224 N08-2D-225 N08-2D-226 N08-2D-227 N08-2D-228 N08-2D-229 N08-2D-230 N08-2D-231 N08-2D-232 N08-2D-233 N08-2D-234 Measure Single named lead clinician Named core team members Named consultant surgical core member(s) for anal cancer Named consultant clinical oncology core member(s) for anal cancer Named MDT for anal cancer Team attendance at NSSG meetings Frequency of treatment planning meeting MDT agreed cover arrangements for core members Core members (or cover) present for at least 2/3 of meetings Annual meeting to discuss operational policy Policy for all new patients to be reviewed by MDT Policy for communication of diagnsis to GP Operational policy for named key worker Core histopathology member taking part in histology EQA MDT/NSSG agreed guidelines on management of surgical emergencies MDT/NSSG agreed secondary to tertiary referral policy MDT/NSSG agreed list of personnel judged competent for colorectal stenting Core nurse member completed specialist study Agreed list of responsibilities for core nurse specialist(s) Agreed list of additional responsibilities for one core nurse specialist Attendance at national advanced communication skills training programme Extended membership of MDT Patients permanent consultation record Patient experience exercise Presentation and discussion of patient experience survey Provision of written patient information Treatment planning decision MDT/NSSG agreed network clincial guidelines for colorectal cancer MDT/NSSG agreed network guidelines for the clinical management of anal cancer MDT/NSSG agreed network guidelines on the resection of liver metastases MDT/NSSG agreed network referral guidelines between teams for anal cancer MDT/NSSG agreed network referral guidelines between teams for the 5

8 Measure Number N08-2D-235 N08-2D-236 N08-2D-237 N08-2D-238 N08-2D-239 N08-2D-240 N08-2D-241 N08-2D-242 N08-2D-243 N08-2D-244 Measure resection of liver metastases MDT/NSSG agreed network investigation protocol for colorectal cancer MDT/network agreed collection of minimum dataset MDT/NSSG agreed policy for the electronic collection of specific portion of MDS MDT/NSSG agreed participation in network audit MDT present results from participation in audit to NSSG MDT/NSSG agreed list of approved trials MDT/NSSG remedial action from MDTs recruitment results MDT to discuss 60 or more new cases per year 20 or more operative procedures per core individual surgical member per year No more than 2 clinical oncologists practising radiology in radiotherapy department and they should be core members 6

9 08-2D-3 - STAND ALONE LIVER RESECTION MDT Measure Number N08-2D-301 N08-2D-302 N08-2D-303 N08-2D-304 N08-2D-305 N08-2D-306 N08-2D-307 N08-2D-308 N08-2D-309 N08-2D-310 N08-2D-311 N08-2D-312 N08-2D-313 N08-2D-314 N08-2D-315 N08-2D-316 N08-2D-317 N08-2D-318 N08-2D-319 N08-2D-320 N08-2D-321 N08-2D-322 N08-2D-323 N08-2D-324 N08-2D-325 N08-2D-326 N08-2D-327 N08-2D-328 N08-2D-329 N08-2D-330 Measure Named single lead clinician MDT listed as part of the named services within a network locality Named core team members Team attendance at NSSG meetings Liver metastatectomies should only be performed under care of core surgical member of MDT Frequency of treatment planning meeting MDT agreed cover arrangements for core members Core members (or cover) present for at least 2/3 of meetings Annual meeting to discuss operational policy MDT to agree follow up policy with referring MDTs in catchment area Metastatectomies should be carried out in the same named hospital The named hospital in which the metastatectomies of the team are carried out should have an ITU and HDU on site Core nurse specialist(s) completed specialist study Agreed list of responsibilities for core nurse specialist(s) Agreed extended responsibility for core nurse member Extended membership of MDT MDT to have separate agreement with each referring MDT Patients' permanent consultation record Patient experience survey Presentation and discussion of patient experience survey Provision of written patient information Treatment planning decision MDT/NSSG network agreed guidelines for the resection of liver metastases MDT/NSSG agreed referral guidelines for consideration of metastatectomy MDT/network agreed collection of mimimum dataset MDT/NSSG agreed policy for the electronic collection of specific portions of MDS MDT/NSSG agreed participation in network audit MDT present results from participation in audit to NSSG MDT/NSSG agreed list of approved trials MDT/NSSG remedial action from MDTs recruitment results 7

10 08-2F-3 - ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR SPECIALIST PANCREATIC MDT WHICH IS BEING PUT FORWARD FOR REVIEW ALSO AS A LIVER RESECTION MDT Measure Number N08-2F-301 N08-2F-302 N08-2F-303 N08-2F-304 N08-2F-305 N08-2F-306 N08-2F-307 N08-2F-308 N08-2F-309 N08-2F-310 N08-2F-311 N08-2F-312 N08-2F-313 N08-2F-314 N08-2F-315 Measure MDT listed as part of the named services within a network locality Team attendance at NSSG meetings Liver metastatectomies only performed under care of core surgical member of MDT MDT agreed follow up policy The named hospital in which the metastatectomies of the team are carried out should have an ITU and HDU on site MDT to have oncology agreement with each referring MDT Provision of written patient information MDT/NSSG agreed clinical guidelines MDT/NSSG agreed referral guidelines MDT/network agreed collection of minimum dataset MDT/NSSG agreed policy for the electronic collection of specific portions of MDS MDT/NSSG agreed participation in network audit MDT present from participation in audit to NSSG MDT/NSSG agreed list of approved trials MDT/NSSG remedial action from MDT's recruitment results 8

11 NI COLORECTAL MEASURES 9

12 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Aim of the Manual of Cancer Services 2008 This revised Manual of Cancer Services is an integral part of the NHS Cancer Plan, Cancer Reform Strategy and modernisation of cancer services. It will support quality assurance of cancer services and enable quality improvement. The National Cancer Peer Review Programme, which is led by the National Cancer Action Team and includes expert clinical and user representation, provides important information about the quality of cancer services across the country. Between 2004 and 2008 peer reviews of cancer services were carried out in each cancer network in England. Development of this Manual of Cancer Services 2008 and the continuation of a revised peer review process has been supported by the service and agreed by strategic health authorities following a review of all national programmes in An independent evaluation of the National Cancer Peer Review Programme also demonstrated strong support for the programme to continue, but recommended that the programme should be modified. A new process will therefore be implemented during 2008 but the measures contained within this manual will remain an integral part of the review process. The manual has not been centrally imposed. 1.2 Background and Context Substantial progress has been made in cancer in the last decade, particularly since the publication of the NHS Cancer Plan in However, major challenges remain and in 2007 the Cancer Reform Strategy was published with aims to: save more lives; improve patients quality of life; reduce inequalities; build for the future; enable cancer care to be delivered in the best place at the right time and achieve maximum value for money. The Cancer Reform Strategy acknowledges that national guidance will continue to play a vital role as cancer services develop over the next five years. Much of this guidance has been developed by the NICE and predecessor bodies. Improving Outcomes Guidance (IOG) for cancer services now covers the vast majority of all cancers. Implementation of this guidance, which involves the establishment of multidisciplinary teams and reconfiguration of some complex services is now well advanced for many cancers and is scheduled to be complete for less common cancers by The revised manual has therefore been drawn up to incorporate the recommendations contained within such guidance including the new guidelines published by NICE. It identifies the characteristics of service that are likely to have a significant impact on health outcomes. It is intended that those characteristics should help those involved in planning, commissioning, organising, and providing cancer services to identify gaps in provision and check the appropriateness and quality of existing services. The measures provide a ready specification for the commissioning of cancer services within a given locality. Changes have also been made as a result of feedback from the use of measures in the manual published in 2004 and following the most recent independent evaluation of peer review published in December There has been a clear commitment to the establishment of an active and positive relationship with the Healthcare Commission and information gathered from the National Cancer Peer Review Programme has been shared with the commission. The Healthcare Commission and in future the Care Quality Commission will play an important role in assessing the quality of cancer services and peer review continues to be committed to working in partnership with that organisation. INTRODUCTION 13

13 1.3 Measures within the National Cancer Peer Review Manual At present peer review focuses largely on measures of structure and process. Over time, as reliable measures of outcome become available, there will be a shift in emphasis. To date, the measures have been confined to adult cancer services, except where they relate incidentally to children, for example, a radiotherapy department would normally treat adults and children. However, measures are currently being developed that specifically address the provision of services for children and young adults with cancer. The development of cancer measures is an ongoing process in order to: reflect new NICE guidance and revisions to existing NICE guidance; allow greater influence by users of cancer services and their carers; take account of possible modifications to measures following peer review visits; ensure the scope of measures encompasses the broader implementation of the Cancer Reform Strategy, including action required to develop world class commissioning of cancer services. 1.4 Reviewing the Measures The National Cancer Peer Review Programme aims to improve care for people with cancer and their families by: ensuring services are as safe as possible; improving the quality and effectiveness of care; improving the patient and carer experience; undertaking independent, fair reviews of services; providing development and learning for all involved; encouraging the dissemination of good practice. The benefits of peer review have been found to include the following: provision of disease specific information across the country together with information about individual teams which has been externally validated; provision of a catalyst for change and service improvement; identification and resolution of immediate risks to patients and / or staff; engagement of a substantial number of front line clinicians in reviews; rapid sharing of learning between clinicians, as well as a better understanding of the key recommendations in the NICE guidance. The new National Cancer Peer Review Programme has taken into account comments received during the review programme and will focus more on annual self assessment, completed by individual teams and services and signed off by the relevant provider CEO and by the cancer network. Targeted and a random sample of self assessments will be externally verified by zonal teams on an annual basis. Some external visits will continue but this will become the exception rather than the rule once a team has demonstrated a high level of compliance with the measures. Peer review data will continue to be published to assist commissioners and promote transparency on service performance. The relationship between NICE Improving Outcomes Guidance and the quality measures within the Manual for Cancer Services is explained in more detail in appendix A. INTRODUCTION 14

14 Appendix A Interpretation of the National Manual of Cancer Services Guidance Compared to Cancer Measures The NICE IOG is exactly what it says guidance, in general and indeed is excellent for this purpose. Guidance involves giving advice and recommendations on how things should be done, now, in the future and sometimes on how things should have been done for sometime already. It may involve describing in effect, the perfect service, using phrases like the best possible, to all patients at all times, etc. It may involve all-inclusive and far-ranging objectives and aspirations, involving many agencies in long, interlinked chains of events and tasks which all have to be fulfilled before the desired outcome of the guidance is achieved. A particular person s accountability for each task is often not stated. It may use influential and important ideas and models, which are however complex or not precisely definable, such as network-wide patient care pathways or culturally-sensitive information. It always contains useful and necessary value judgements which use words like sufficient, appropriate, robust and comprehensive, but it often has to leave unanswered, the key question what exactly is it which makes the issue under examination sufficient, appropriate, robust and comprehensive or not? It uses concepts, which, although crucial, may not be measurable. It ranges widely from things which everybody gets right as a matter of course already, through to principles, which, if taken literally, nobody would comply with ever. All these features, although they may sound unhelpful as described above, are present in all guidance documents and are part of the necessary and accepted style of guidance writing. Without this underlying type of mindset, guidance would not inspire, lead, motivate or guide, and would probably be almost unreadable. The Manual of Cancer Services has to take a different approach. It is written for and only for the specific purpose of being used to assess a service against it, to aid self-assessment and team development, (a) by a peer review visit, (b) on a specific occasion, (c) a visit which has to be fair compared to visits to other services elsewhere, and (d) to past and future visits to the same service. Therefore, the measures have to: be objective with as little room as possible for arguments between assessors and assessed; and between different teams of assessors; be measurable and at least capable of definitely being complied with or not; be specific not addressing several issues at once, or long, linked chains of tasks all being done by different agencies; be verifiable by evidence produced for the visit; state who exactly is responsible for what or nobody may take responsibility for anything; sometimes deal with the implications of the guidance which may not have been explicitly stated but which are essential for anything to actually happen; be discriminating it s no use spending time and money on assessing something which everybody gets right already; be achievable it s no use committing everybody to permanent and automatic failure because of the way something is worded; be clear and unambiguous the words will be taken to mean exactly what they appear to say, and therefore they have to say exactly what we mean and nothing else; pick out and address the most important issues the peer review process is limited in its scope; be developmental encourage continuous quality improvement and not produce destructive competition or a sense of failure; APPENDIX A 15

15 be sensibly and fairly related to previous standards in order to be developmental not just arbitrarily moving the goal posts. All this results in the rather esoteric style of the manual. Please judge the measures on their merits in the light of the above and not in comparison to the guidance. 1.2 The responsibility for assessment purposes This refers to the fact that someone, or some group, is always held nominally responsible for compliance with each one of the quality measures. This has to be specified or, in terms of organising the peer review and collecting the results, it would be unclear who was being held as compliant or non-compliant or to whom the results could be attributed. Where it is unclear who has responsibility there tends to be inertia. This attribution of responsibility does not necessarily commit a given person to actually carrying out a given task this can be delegated according to local discretion, unless it is clear that a given task really is limited to a certain group. 1.3 Agreement Where agreement to guidelines, policies, etc is required this should be stated clearly on the cover sheet of the three key documents including date and version. Similarly, evidence of guidelines, policies, etc requires written evidence unless otherwise specified. The agreement by a person representing a group or team (chair or lead, etc) implies that their agreement is not personal, but that they are representing the consensus opinion of that group. 1.4 Confirmation of Compliance Compliance against certain measures will be the subject of spot checks or further enquires by peer reviewers when a peer review visit is undertaken. When self assessing against these measures a statement of confirmation of compliance contained within the relevant key evidence document will be sufficient. 1.5 Quality Aspects of Cancer Service Delivery Many of the measures expect that policies, procedures, job descriptions and other documents will be in place. In reviewing compliance with the measures (i.e. measure met or not) during validation, verification and visits, reviewers will look only for the presence of such documents, unless aspects of the content are specified in the wording of the measure. Where some aspect of the content is specified then this will be taken into account in determining compliance. As part of the improvement of cancer services, reviewers may comment on the content of documents and agreements but this will not affect the determination of compliance. Work is ongoing to enable us to subject more of the quality aspects of cancer service delivery to objective measures for future rounds of peer review. Many reviewers have a legitimate and valuable contribution to make by way of comments on areas which are a matter of opinion rather than fact or authoritative and evidence based standards. This recognises the qualitative as well as quantitative approach to reviews. This contribution can be made by way of a textual report in addition to the objective recording of compliance against the measures. This report is separate from the review against the measures and is inevitably more subjective and open to debate. However, there are many ways in which it can add to the overall picture gained from the peer review. APPENDIX A 16

16 1 STRUCTURE OF THE MEASURES The general layout of the measures is illustrated in the diagram in appendix B. Each measure has a three part number e.g. 08-1A- 201j The first part indicates the year the measure was first issued e.g. 08. The second part relates to a particular topic (see below) e.g. 1A. The third part is made up of a unique measure number in the topic and where relevant a suffix letter indicating a specific tumour and cross cutting services e.g. 201j (see below). Index of suffix letters a - Generic to all tumour sites b - Breast specific c - Lung specific d - Colorectal specific e - Gynaecology specific f - UGI specific g - Urology specific h - Haematology specific i - Head and Neck specific j - Skin specific r - Specialist Palliative Care specific s - Chemotherapy specific t - Radiotherapy specific u - User Group specific Index of Topics Topic 1 covers the management and organisation of the whole cancer network. Within topic 1: Section 1A covers the establishment of the network board and its functions. Section 1B covers co-ordination of cancer commissioning for service developments. Section 1C covers the functions of the network site specific groups (NSSGs). Section 1D covers the functions of the locality groups, each of which is responsible for the management and organisation of one of the localities that have been defined and established by the board. Section 1E covers the functions of the following groups: palliative care, chemotherapy, network users group. Topic 2 deals with service delivery by multidisciplinary teams rather than network management and organisation. It covers the establishment and functions of the MDTs for a particular cancer site or related group of cancers. The sections in topic 2 cover each of the tumour sites. The letter indicating the tumour site e.g. 2B breast multidisciplinary team. STRUCTURE OF THE MEASURES 17

17 Topic 3 deals with services, which are not specific to a particular cancer site. They cover specialist palliative care MDTs, cancer imaging, chemotherapy, cancer pathology and radiotherapy. The sections in topic 3 cover each of the cross cutting services. The letter indicating the particular service e.g. 3T chemotherapy service. Topic 4 covers Cancer Registries. Topic 5 covers Cancer Research Networks. Topic 6 covers Primary Care Trusts. Topic 7 covers Children s Cancer. Some themes, such as service improvement, patient centred care, general supportive and palliative care and data collection are addressed at various places within the Manual of Cancer Services. Each network will be made up of several localities and several NSSGs/cross cutting groups, each with multiple MDTs and services. These MDTs and services will each need to demonstrate compliance with the relevant National Cancer Quality Measures. A network overview will be developed by bringing together the findings relating to individual MDTs and services as well as those concerning network organisation and structures. Manual of Cancer Services On-line To assist cancer networks to navigate round the measures - and to help individuals focus on the measures of interest to them an on-line version of the Manual of Cancer Services has been developed. The on-line version allows individuals to identify and extract measures by tumour site, organisation type and subject area in a variety of formats. The on-line manual can be accessed from the CQuINS web site at SRUCTURE OF THE MEASURES 18

18 Appendix B Provider and Commissioner Cancer Network Structure and the Cancer Measures Topic 1 Cancer Network Sections: 1A Network Board 1B Commissioning 1C Network Site Specific Groups 1D Locality Groups 1E Network Cross-Cutting Services Topic 2 Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT) Sections: 2B Breast MDT 2C Lung MDT 2D Colorectal MDT 2D-2 Local 2D-3 Liver 2E Gynaecology MDT 2E-1 Local 2E-2 Specialist 2F UGI MDT 2F-1 Local 2F-2 Specialist 2F-3 Liver 2G Urology MDT 2G-1 Local 2G-2 Specialist 2G-3 Testicular 2G-4 Penile 2H Haematology MDT 2I Head & Neck MDT 2I-1 UAT/ Thyroid Combined 2I-2 Thyroid 2J Skin MDT 2J-1 Local 2J-2 Specialist 2J-3 Malignant Melanoma 2J-4 T-Cell Cutaneous Lymphoma Topic 3 Cross-Cutting Services Sections: 3R Specialist Palliative Care MDT 3S 3T Chemotherapy 3T-1 Clinical Chemotherapy 3T-2 Oncology Pharmacy 3T-3 Intrathecal Chemotherapy 3T-4 Level II Treatment Facility 3T-5 Level III/IV Treatment Facility Radiotherapy Topic 4 Cancer Registry Topic 5 Cancer Research Networks Topic 6 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) Topic 7 Children s Cancer APPENDIX B 19

19 Introduction The revised Improving Outcomes Guidance (IOG) on colorectal cancer has made some key recommendations which are intended to improve the service over and above that described in the original colorectal IOG and peer reviewed in the first round against the quality measures in the Manual for Cancer Services Standards (2000). These recommendations are as follows: There is a requirement for systematic arrangements to increase the speed and efficiency of initial referral and diagnosis of patients and to make endoscopy the primary diagnostic investigation. There are changes to the minimum required core membership of colorectal MDTs and a requirement for such teams to deal with a minimum of 60 new cases of colorectal cancer per year and for individual core surgical team members to undertake a minimum per year of 20 resections of colorectal cancer performed. Detailed arrangements have been stipulated to ensure that patients with surgical emergencies due to colorectal cancer are dealt with by MDT members. A degree of consolidation of specialist expertise is required, resulting in the treatment of anal cancer and the local resection of early rectal cancer being performed by a limited number of colorectal MDTs. Specialised MDTs are defined for the surgical resection of liver metastases in selected patients. These 'liver resection MDTs' may be the same MDTs as currently manage pancreatic cancer, or new liver resection MDTs may be established specifically for this task. For either of these two models the resulting MDT should have a minimum of 2 million for referral for resection of liver metastases. Because of this, no cancer network in England should be able to support more than one liver resection MDT on the basis of its own population, and some will have to refer to a team in a neighbouring network. These recommendations have determined the revisions to the quality measures for colorectal cancer. Because of the likelihood of some degree of service reconfiguration, the network board in consultation with the NSSG is given the responsibility for review purposes of deciding the network configuration of the teams for anal cancer, local resection of early rectal cancer and resection of liver metastases. As far as measures for diagnosis and assessment are concerned, because no major reconfigurations necessarily follow from the revised IOG, the responsibility lies with the NSSG and the locality groups for those localities which host a trust which deals with colorectal cancer. The different types of MDT outlined above should fulfil certain specific 'Team Criteria'. Team Criteria (i) MDT for colorectal cancer (not treating anal cancer or offering local resection of early rectal cancer) It should be declared as part of the services of a named locality in the network. Its core surgical MDT members should, as a group, perform a total of 60 colorectal cancer resections with curative intent, per year. (This has a separate measure in the MDT section). (ii) Colorectal MDT treating anal cancer In addition to the criteria in (i) above: It should be the only MDT in the network treating anal cancer. (iii) Colorectal MDT offering local resection for early rectal cancer. (iv) MDT for resection of liver metastases. Either: a) It may be made up of the same personnel who also serve as and are put forward for review as a pancreatic cancer MDT and who discuss the business of liver resection as part of the same MDT meetings, and b) it should be the only MDT in the network for resection of liver metastases. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

20 Or: a) It may be a separate MDT, put forward for review independently as a liver resection MDT. and b) It should be declared as part of the services of a named locality in the network. and c) It should be the only such MDT in the network. Whichever of the above two options apply, it should have a minimum catchment population of 2 million for referral for resection of liver metastases. Building the Colorectal Cancer Network to Comply with the Revised IOG The measures assign the responsibility for the following steps to the network board acting in consultation with the NSSG and the PCTs. 1. Agree the identity and location of all colorectal MDTs in the network. 2. Agree the identity and location of the colorectal MDT which will deal with anal cancer for the network. 3. Agree the referral guidelines between the colorectal MDTs and the selected MDTs for anal cancer 4. Agree the identity and location of the MDT for resection of liver metastases for the network. 5. Agree the referral guidelines between the colorectal MDTs and the liver resection MDT. 6. From the population of the PCTs which are served by the colorectal MDTs and the referral guidelines between the colorectal MDTs and the liver resection MDT, confirm that the referring catchment population of the liver resection MDT is 2 million or more. The identity and location of all the above types of MDT make up the network configuration for colorectal cancer. The network may choose a configuration such that some or all of the specialised MDTs which it makes use of (anal cancer, and liver resection) are in a neighbouring network. When is a Team a Team and when is it not a Team? The measures review a variety of aspects of the team both structure and function, but the key question, which underlies all this is who exactly constitutes the MDT from the point of view of the peer review? Which group of people should be put forward for review against these measures and who is it who is held compliant or non compliant? This is best answered from the patient's point of view. If you were a patient, who would you consider to be your MDT? Primarily it is that group of people of different health care disciplines which meets together at a given time (whether physically in one place, or by video or tele-conferencing) to discuss a given patient and who are each able to contribute independently to the diagnostic and treatment decisions about the patient. They constitute that patient's MDT. The way the MDT meeting itself is organised is left to local discretion such that different professional disciplines may make their contributions at different times, without necessarily being present for the whole meeting, in order to prevent wastage of staff time. The key requirement is that each discipline is able to contribute independently to the decisions regarding each relevant patient. The specific situation where a separate 'diagnostic' meeting of a particular subset of the MDT membership filters out cases with benign conditions, is dealt with where relevant by a specific measure. For some cancer types the IOG has laid down detailed requirements over how the diagnostic process should be incorporated into the MDT system and this has also been translated into the measures where applicable. Two or more groups of people who may have declared an alliance to form a so-called 'combined' MDT, but who do not all meet together to collectively contribute to the decisions on a given patient as specified above, do not constitute an MDT from the point of view of peer review. Such alliances have been attempted in order to achieve, for instance, a minimum caseload or catchment population. This is not appropriate. Each separate group, meeting as specified above, should be reviewed separately against such criteria. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

21 In general the measures should be applied to that defined group, but there are some functions for which MDTs may combine in a way which is appropriate. Then, the evidence put forward to demonstrate their compliance with the relevant measures may serve as common evidence across the MDTs but it is applied separately and compliance is awarded separately to each team. The main examples of this are as follows: a combined operational policy meeting but the policies are agreed on behalf of each MDT by its lead clinician; network-wide clinical, referral, imaging and pathology guidelines, but each MDT agrees to abide by them; the same network-wide project for network audit, but each MDT agreeing to participate; a common minimum dataset, but each MDT agrees to collect its portion of it; a network list of approved trials but each MDT agrees to enter patients; an individual health professional being made a member of more than one MDT, but a particular defined and named set of people make up a given MDT. As well as meeting to make the combined multidisciplinary decisions about patients, the members of some types of MDTs are required by the measures to carry out another key function in company with other specified personnel. Thus, some of the more complex surgical procedures should all be performed by the same group of professionals - surgeon, anaesthetic and skilled theatre and aftercare staff. This is ensured by requiring services to be organised for that MDT so that all cases of a given procedure are performed in the same hospital. The people will largely be a different set of people from those who meet to make the diagnostic and treatment decisions (the MDT as defined as in the measures) but they will directly relate to that MDT and be specified by it, because at least one key functionary, the surgeon, will be a core member of that MDT. In requiring all the complex procedures to be performed in the same hospital of the MDT, this ties in the referral catchment population of the MDT to that hospital. This provides a direct link between the referring catchment population for MDT discussion, and the treatment caseload of the treatment team and its hospital facilities. Reviewing Colorectal Cancer Against the Revised Measures 1. Establishing the NSSG and agreeing and establishing the configuration of the MDTs of the colorectal cancer network is the responsibility for review purposes of the chair of the network board and is reviewed under Topic 1A - cancer networks - colorectal specific measures, compliance counting towards the review of the network board. 2. Functions of the colorectal NSSG. This is the responsibility for review purposes of the chair of the NSSG and is reviewed under Topic 1C, compliance counting towards the review of the colorectal NSSG. 3. The locality groups providing named personnel with specified time, to run the diagnostic service. This is the responsibility for review purposes of the chairs of the relevant locality groups and is reviewed under Topic 1D compliance counting towards the review of the locality group. 4. The colorectal MDTs - applying the relevant sets of the following measures to each MDT in the colorectal cancer network: (Sections 2D-2 and 2D-3) The MDT measures are the responsibility for review purposes of the lead clinician of the MDT in question and compliance counts towards the review of that MDT. Note on applicability of measures for liver resection teams Where the work of resection of liver metastases is done by the personnel of a pancreatic MDT, the additional measures do not go over again the general aspects of MDT function which are covered by the pancreatic team measures in Topic 2F (e.g. MDT nurse member measures, patient-centred care, key worker, etc.). Where there is a stand-alone liver resection MDT, the measures cover more areas than the above NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

22 cases, but do not completely duplicate all the measures of, conventional MDTs, since the liver resection MDT, unlike for example the colorectal MDT, does not deal with a patient straight from diagnosis of a primary cancer site. The team is, in effect, called in to consult on, and possibly manage one part of the patient's journey. The rest of the journey is managed by the original colorectal MDT. Thus, for example, issues around informing the GP of the diagnosis of malignancy and the provision of a key worker are not covered again. The liver resection measures for the pancreatic team should, for convenience, be considered part of the review of upper GI, and compliance should count towards the overall review of the pancreatic MDT. For some aspects of MDT function there are measures which cover the role which the liver resection team should fulfil, as it is dovetailed into the overall management of colorectal cancer. Examples of this are the agreement to collect the relevant part of the overall minimum dataset, and to take part in any relevant parts of the network's list of approved trials for colorectal cancer. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

23 TOPIC 08-1A-2d - COLORECTAL SPECIFIC NETWORK BOARD MEASURES TRUSTS, HOSPITALS AND SERVICES Calman-Hine assumed that the whole of a cancer network was divided into either cancer centres or cancer units. This works geographically in some networks where all tertiary services were grouped conveniently in one city, serving surrounding DGHs which provided only secondary services. For many networks things are more complicated, so for this round of peer review a simpler way of dividing a cancer network into manageable parts has been devised. Previously designated centres and units can still fit into this (see below). The whole of each cancer network is considered to be divided into parts which the network itself defines pragmatically on the grounds of concentrations of population and the arrangement of hospital services and the best way that the network board judges them to be grouped for its own purpose of managing the cancer network. For the purpose of the peer review these parts have to have a label. They will be known in the manual as 'localities'. The hospitals, MDTs and services which make up any given locality are entirely at the discretion of the network. Each locality should have a group which oversees it for the network - the locality group, having the representation and terms of reference set out in the measures. The reason for the existence of localities is to ensure that the network's policies, procedures and action plans are implemented across real services 'on the ground' and a real dialogue takes place regarding developments and commissioning. It can be seen from the above that: a previously designated 'cancer centre' or 'cancer unit' will be reviewed under this arrangement of 'localities'; in many cases a locality will be synonymous with a trust and the palliative care services and PCTs associated with its local catchment area. NOMENCLATURE Within the network measures a number of groups have been defined. These groups each need a name for the purposes of the measures, and for data collection from the peer review. The names are purely labels for the measures. Provided a group is formed and put forward for assessment against the appropriate set of measures the name used locally is a local matter. The result of its review will be recorded and collated for the network database under its measures' name, to avoid confusion. The overall management group has changed its name in the measures from round one "network management group" to "network board", to reflect the terminology in the document "Shifting the Balance of Power - The Next Steps". It is meant to be the same body, although its required membership and scope have expanded. As explained above, cancer centre groups and cancer unit groups, as referred to in the round one measures, have been replaced by the more generic and flexible concept of the 'locality group', but the continued local use of the former names is entirely at local discretion and such groups (possibly needing modification of membership, etc) should be put forward for review against the locality group measures. ESTABLISHMENT OF NETWORK SITE SPECIFIC GROUPS (NSSGs) The responsibility for review purposes for measures 08-1A-201d to 08-1A-203d lies with the chair of the network. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

24 N08-1A-201d There should be a single NSSG, having a membership fulfilling the following: the MDT lead clinician from each MDT in the network; at least one nurse core member of a MDT in the network; there should be a named chair drawn from the above membership; two user representatives; one of the NHS employed members of the NSSG should be nominated as having specific responsibility for users' issues and information for patients and carers; a member of the NSSG responsible for ensuring recruitment into clinical trials and other well designed studies is integrated into the function of the NSSG; named secretarial/administrative support. There should be terms of reference agreed for the NSSG which include the NSSG being recognised as: the board's primary source of clinical opinion on issues relating to cancer for the network; the group with corporate responsibility, delegated by the board, for co-ordination and consistency across the network for cancer policy, practice guidelines, audit, research and service improvement; consulting with the relevant "cross cutting" network groups on issues involving chemotherapy, cancer imaging, histopathology and laboratory investigation and specialist palliative care; and with the head of service on issues involving radiotherapy. There may be additional agreed members and attendance at an individual meeting need not be limited to the agreed members. If the local user group do not wish to, or are unable to, nominate a user representative, but there is an agreed mechanism for obtaining user advice then the measure will be deemed to have been complied with. There may be additional points in the agreed terms of reference. Recommendations may be found in appendix 2. Compliance: The named members and NSSG chair, agreed by the chair of the network board. The terms of reference agreed by the chair of the network board and the chair of the NSSG. CANCER NETWORKS - COLORECTAL SPECIFIC MEASURES The responsibility for review purposes for measures 08-1A-202d to 08-1A- 210d lies with the chair of the network board. COLORECTAL ACTION PLANS (IOG) N08-1A-202d The network board in consultation with the NSSG for colorectal cancer should agree with the PCTs in the network a policy to the effect that: (i) (ii) the diagnosis and assessment of patients referred from primary care with potential colorectal cancer should only be carried out by the named diagnostic services which are agreed by the network and whose referral contact points are given in the network primary care referral guidelines; in particular there should be no direct referral of newly presenting patients for large bowel investigation from primary care to individual, named colorectal surgeons or gastro-enterologists; NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

25 (iii) endoscopy should be the preferred initial investigation for making the definitive diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Compliance: The policy agreed by the chair of the network board, the chair of the NSSG and the network PCT leads. N08-1A-203d The network board, in consultation with the NSSG should agree with the PCTs, the named hospitals in the network which should each host a colorectal diagnostic service, with the specified referral contact points as stated in the primary care referral guidelines. The distribution of the diagnostic services should be such that the PCTs agree that their populations have sufficient access. Not every hospital in the network need host a colorectal diagnostic service. Compliance: The named hospitals and the referral contact points, agreed by the chair of the network board, the chair of the NSSG and the network PCT leads. The primary care referral guidelines. MDT CONFIGURATION IN THE NETWORK N08-1A-204d The network board should agree in consultation with the NSSG and the cancer lead clinician of each trust in the network, the list of named colorectal MDTs and their locations in the network. Compliance: The list of named colorectal MDTs with their locations agreed by the chair of the network board, the chair of the NSSG and the trust lead clinicians. N08-1A-205d The network board should agree in consultation with the NSSG and the cancer lead clinician of each trust in the network, which colorectal MDT(s) will deal with anal cancer for the network. An MDT to which patients with anal cancer are referred may be in a neighbouring network. It is expected and intended that the measures relating to colorectal MDTs which specialise in the treatment of anal cancer will normally result in a network either having only one such MDTs or even referring all its patients to a specialised MDT for anal cancer in a neighbouring network. In a very few of the largest networks, more than one such MDT might be feasible although even in this case, they should seriously consider having only one MDT for anal cancer. The reviewers should comment specifically in their report, where there are multiple MDT's for anal cancer in a network of around average or less than average size. Compliance: The named MDTs agreed by the chair of the network board and the chair of the NSSG and the trust lead clinicians. N08-1A-206d The network board should agree, in consultation with the NSSG and the cancer lead clinician of each trust in the network, the identity and location of an MDT for resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer for the network and whether this will be a stand alone liver resection team, or alternatively a pancreatic cancer MDT which is also being put forward for review as a liver resection MDT. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

26 The MDT may be in a neighbouring network. Compliance: The name, location and type of team agreed by the chair of the network board, the chair of the NSSG and the trust lead clinicians. REFERRAL GUIDELINES BETWEEN TEAMS Anal Cancer N08-1A-207d The network board in consultation with the NSSG should produce a referral guideline to the effect that colorectal MDTs should refer patients with anal cancer suitable for curative treatment to the MDT agreed for the network in measure 08-1A-205d. Compliance: The referral guideline agreed by the chair of the network board and the chair of the NSSG. Resection of Liver Metastases N08-1A-208d The network board in consultation with the NSSG should produce a referral guide to the effect that colorectal MDTs should refer patients with liver metastases, selected according to the network clinical guidelines (measure 08-1C-111d) to the liver resection MDT specified in measure 08-1A-206d. This MDT may be in another network. Compliance: The referral guideline agreed by the chair of the network board and the chair of the NSSG. CATCHMENT POPULATION Introduction This measure applies only if the network hosts a liver resection MDT. N08-1A-210d The network board should agree with the NSSG the catchment population for referral to the liver resection MDT. This should be a minimum of 2 million. The population should be estimated from the referring catchment populations of the liver resection MDT's referring colorectal teams. Compliance: The catchment population agreed by the chair of the network board and the chair of the NSSG. When a team receives referrals from other networks, as agreed in network guidelines, the catchment population of the referring network should be counted towards the total catchment population of the receiving team in the receiving network. The catchment populations should count once and for only one network's compliance. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

27 TOPIC 08-1C-1d - FUNCTIONS OF NETWORK SITE SPECIFIC GROUPS (NSSGs) Introduction The measures in this section should be applied separately to each NSSG in the network. If a network has MDTs for any given cancer site, but has no NSSG, the results for this section, regarding that cancer site, should be classed as 'non- compliant'. If a network has no MDTs for one of the six cancer sites covered by IOG-based measures, the results for this section, regarding that cancer site should be classed as 'not-applicable'. Because of the varying requirements of the different IOGs the NSSGs have differing responsibilities, therefore the way the measures in this section apply differs between the various cancer sites. The responsibility for review purposes for measures dealing with the function of NSSGs lies with the chair of the group. GENERAL ACTIVITIES N08-1C-101d The NSSG should meet regularly and record attendance. The attendance of MDT representatives is reviewed as part of each MDTs' measures. Compliance: A list of meeting dates and attendance records in the last 12 months. N08-1C-102d The chair of the NSSG should have an annual review with the network lead clinician and/or an appropriate member of the network board. The NSSG should have agreed an annual work programme with the board. The NSSG should have produced an annual report for the board. Compliance: Documentation sufficient to show that a review meeting took place with the network lead clinician and/or appropriate member of the network board. The annual work programme agreed by the chair of the network board. The annual report agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. This meeting should be face to face. An is not an acceptable mechanism for the review. CLINICAL GUIDELINES Introduction The responsibility for review purposes for the network guidelines measuresn lies with the team lead clinicians, the colorectal NSSG and the chair of the network board. For their compliance with this measure the NSSG should, in consultation with the MDTs, the network chemotherapy group and radiotherapy head of service, produce the network-wide clinical guidelines. Each individual MDT, for their compliance with the relevant measure on clinical guidelines in the MDT section, should agree to them. Network guidelines should be reviewed at least every 3 years, or when guidance is available. The measures count towards the review of the NSSG and the individual team. N08-1C-103d The NSSG should agree network-wide clinical guidelines (how a given patient NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

28 should be clinically managed, usually at the level of which modality of treatment is indicated, rather than detailed regimens or surgical techniques). More details of regimens and techniques may be agreed if desired. Compliance: The clinical guidelines agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. OPERATIONAL POLICIES OF THE COLORECTAL DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE Single Referral Process N08-1C-104d The NSSG should agree with the trust lead cancer clinician for each trust hosting a diagnostic service, a policy to the effect that for each trust there should be a single initial decision point (final common path) for prioritising appointments for patients referred for investigation of large bowel symptoms, rather than initial referral direct to individual, named consultant surgeons or gastroenterologists. This relates to the single referral contact point in the primary care referral guidelines (measure 08-1C-118d) and the clinical lead and administrative personnel (measure 08-1D-102d). Compliance: The policy agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the relevant trust lead clinicians. Protocol for Prioritising Appointments N08-1C-105d The NSSG should agree a network-wide protocol for placing which types of clinical presentation into which level of priority for booking appointments for investigation of large bowel problems. The protocol should then form the structure of the network-wide primary care referral proforma (measure 08-1C-118d). The clinical presentations should be in accord with the National Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer The reviewers need not check this point systematically for compliance. Compliance: The protocol agreed by the chair of the NSSG. Investigation Protocol Introduction The primary care referral proforma. The NSSG for its compliance with this measure should produce the investigation protocol and the individual MDTs for compliance with the relevant team measure should agree to it. N08-1C-106d The NSSG should agree in consultation with the MDTs, the network cancer imaging group and the network cancer pathology group, a network-wide investigation protocol which specifies, for the different clinical presentations caused directly by a large bowel, primary cancer: (i) (ii) the investigations (including imaging, histopathology and laboratory tests) which should be performed and, if applicable, in which sequence, for the diagnosis and, if positive, the subsequent assessment of the case; which parts of the protocol are the responsibility of the diagnostic service; NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

29 (iii) which parts of the protocol are the responsibility of the MDT; (iv) that endoscopy is the preferred method for making the initial diagnosis of a large bowel primary cancer. The NSSG may agree more wide-ranging investigation protocols - e.g. for patients representing with symptoms due to metastatic disease. This is not subject to review. Compliance: The protocol agreed by the chair of the NSSG, the chair of the network cancer imaging group and the chair of the network cancer pathology group. Clinical Responsibility Introduction The classical system of referring a patient from primary care directly to an individual hospital practitioner such as a colorectal surgeon or gastroenterologist guaranteed that the patient was understood to be the responsibility of that practitioner from the point of receipt of the initial referral. In order to streamline the process, this system is being replaced by referral to the diagnostic service. One consequence of this change is that a clear agreement is now needed regarding who is clinically responsible for the patient through the diagnostic process. From a clinical governance point of view, the ultimate clinical responsibility for a patient at a given point should not rest with a department or an MDT but with an identifiable practitioner. N08-1C-107d The NSSG should agree in consultation with the MDTs and the network cancer imaging group a policy specifying the medical practitioner (whether primary care practitioner, consultant surgeon, gastroenterologist or investigational consultant) who is considered to be responsible for the patient at each stage from referral from primary care to the treatment planning decision of the colorectal MDT. Compliance: The policy agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network cancer imaging group. Onward Referral from the Diagnostic Service N08-1C-108d The NSSG should agree in consultation with the MDTs and the network cancer imaging group a policy governing onward referral from the colorectal diagnostic service when a diagnosis is made of either malignant disease or non-malignant disease. The policy should specify: the procedure to be followed; the personnel responsible for making the onward referral; the contact points for the MDTs; the points in the process and personnel responsible for informing the patient and the GP of the diagnosis; an intention to inform the GP of a diagnosis of malignancy by the following working day after the patient has been informed. Compliance: The policy specifying the above points, agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network cancer imaging group. NETWORK GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ANAL CANCER, EARLY RECTAL CANCER AND RESECTION OF LIVER METASTASES Introduction These are specific guidelines for anal cancer, early rectal cancer and the resection of liver NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

30 metastases. The clinical guidelines for the general management of colorectal cancer are covered by measure 08-1C-103d. The NSSG for compliance should produce the guidelines and the individual MDTs for their compliance with the relevant team measure should agree with them. N08-1C-109d The NSSG should agree, in consultation with the MDTs, network-wide guidelines for the management of anal cancer, including: pre-treatment assessment methods; indications of radiotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy and surgery; the stages in the assessment process where the patient is the responsibility of the colorectal MDT and those where they are the responsibility of the anal cancer MDT. Compliance: The guidelines agreed by the chair of the NSSG. N08-1C-110d The NSSG should agree in consultation with the MDTs network-wide guidelines for the management of early rectal cancer, including: criteria based on clinical, MRI and endosonography parameters, for selecting patients for consideration of curative treatment of early rectal cancer by local resection; that all patients with possible T1, lesions (on the basis of clinical and MRI parameters) should be referred for endosonography; that, following endosonography, all patients then suitable should be referred to one of the MDTs agreed as specialising in local resection. Compliance: The guidelines agreed by the chair of the NSSG. N08-1C-111d The NSSG should agree, in consultation with the MDTs (including a representative of the liver resection MDT), network-wide guidelines for the resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer, including: the indications (in terms of specific clinical and investigational parameters) for metastatectomy and for its use in combination with chemotherapy; the stages in the assessment process where the patient is the responsibility of the colorectal MDT and those where they are the responsibility of the liver resection MDT. Compliance: The guidelines agreed by the chair of the NSSG. COLORECTAL STENTING Introduction The next two measures are intended to make sure that those practising colorectal stenting (if any) for the network are judged as being competent. It is not intended that the agreed levels of competency are so low as to ensure that at least one person is practising stenting in the network at the time of the peer review. For compliance the NSSG should produce the policy and the list of the named competent personnel. The individual MDTs for their compliance with the relevant team measure should agree to the list of competent personnel. N08-1C-112d The NSSG should agree in consultation with the MDTs a policy that the practice of colorectal stenting should be limited to named personnel agreed as being competent in this practice by the NSSG. Compliance: The policy agreed by the chair of the NSSG. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

31 N08-1C-113d The NSSG should name the current personnel who have been agreed as competent for colorectal stenting. Compliance: The list of named personnel agreed by the chair of the NSSG. The reviewers should enquire as to the personnel practising colorectal stenting in the network. THE SECONDARY TO SECONDARY REFERRAL POLICY Introduction The next two measures are designed to cover patients diagnosed outside the agreed primary care referral process to the colorectal diagnostic service, whose process is dealt with by other relevant measures. The NSSG for compliance should produce the policy and the individual MDT, for its compliance with the relevant team measure, should agree to it. N08-1C-114d The NSSG should, in consultation with the MDTs, agree a policy to ensure that when patients are diagnosed unexpectedly or incidentally with colorectal cancer, or known patients are diagnosed with recurrent or metastatic disease - in any of these cases by clinicians who are not members of a colorectal MDT - then they are referred to a named core member of a relevant colorectal MDT. The referral should be made by the end of the first complete working day following the discovery of the diagnosis. The policy should include: the methods of communication; the contact points for relevant core members of colorectal MDTs in the network; whose responsibility it is to contact the MDT member; whose responsibility it is and what the method is by which the patient is informed of the diagnosis and the referral. Compliance: The policy, covering the above points, agreed by the chair of the NSSG. N08-1C-115d The secondary to secondary referral policy should be distributed to at least all consultant upper and lower GI surgeons, gynaecologists, gastro-enterologists, consultant physicians with an interest in medicine for the elderly and lead clinicians of cancer imaging services in the network. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the distribution process. They should not make exhaustive checks on this. Minor shortcomings in the completeness of distribution should not preclude compliance. THE MANAGEMENT OF SURGICAL EMERGENCIES POTENTIALLY DUE TO COLORECTAL CANCER Introduction The NSSG for compliance should produce the guidelines and the individual MDT, for their compliance with the relevant team measure, should agree to them. N08-1C-116d The NSSG, in consultation with the MDTs and the trust cancer lead clinicians in the network, should agree for each hospital which admits surgical emergencies, network-wide guidelines for the management of surgical emergencies related to colorectal cancer. They should specify at least the following: that patients presenting as emergencies with intraluminal large bowel NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

32 obstruction should be stabilised pre-operatively if necessary so that surgery can wait until it can be performed under the care of the core surgical MDT member, unless delay would be life-threatening; that if the hospital does not host the practice of a core surgical MDT member, there should be an agreement between the relevant trust cancer lead clinicians to transfer such patients pre-operatively to a named hospital, which hosts the surgical practice of a core surgical MDT member, for management under the care of that surgeon; that the guidelines apply within and outside normal working hours. The NSSG may agree additional guidelines for colorectal cancer emergencies (e.g. for non-surgical emergencies). These are not subject to review. Compliance: The guidelines covering the above points, agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the trust lead cancer clinicians. The relevant named hospitals without an in-house practising core surgical MDT member, with the named hospital to which each one will refer emergency patients, agreed by the relevant trust lead clinicians. N08-1C-117d The network guidelines on the management of surgical emergencies related to colorectal cancer should be distributed to consultant upper and lower GI surgeons, all surgeons on the surgical emergency 'take' rota of their hospitals, gynaecologists and all physicians on the medical emergency take rota of their hospitals. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the distribution process. They should not make exhaustive checks on this. Minor shortcomings in the completeness of distribution should not preclude compliance. PRIMARY CARE REFERRAL GUIDELINES N08-1C-118d The NSSG should, in consultation with the network board, produce network-wide guidelines for primary care practitioners on the referral for diagnosis of patients with potential colorectal cancer. The guidelines should include: a requirement to refer to a network agreed colorectal diagnostic service, not a named individual consultant, and to use a network-agreed referral proforma; the proforma, which should specify: (i) (ii) which type of presentation (in terms of specific symptoms and patient characteristics) should be referred with which level of priority (with regard to how quickly they should be dealt with); the single referral contact point for each trust hosting a colorectal diagnostic service in the network. The primary care guidelines should be distributed to all primary care practices in the network. Limited versions of the proforma may be used in local areas of the network provided the information in i) above is agreed network-wide. The contact points in ii) may be limited to those relevant to the local area in question. Compliance: The primary care guidelines including the proforma, agreed by the chair of the NSSG. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

33 The reviewers should enquire as to the distribution process. They should not make exhaustive enquires on this. Minor short comings in the completeness of distribution should not preclude compliance. ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR EARLY RECTAL CANCER N08-1C-119d The NSSG, in consultation with the MDTs, should agree network-wide guidelines for the assessment of patients with early rectal cancer. It should specify at least the following: an investigation protocol specifying the imaging techniques and selection criteria for identifying patients with T1 rectal cancer which are suitable for local resection. The protocol should specify the role of MRI scanning; that rectal endosonography should be used in that part of the protocol which deals with selection for suitability for Trans-anal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEMS), if patients are referred for this procedure. The term 'local resection' is defined here, for the purposes of peer review, as a resection procedure intended to achieve complete local removal of malignant disease from the primary site, but which does not involve the resection of the full circumference of the bowel and removal of a complete segment. Specific surgical techniques as agreed in the network, may be named in the protocol such as 'endo anal resection', 'endoscopic mucosal resection' etc. The details of procedures are not subject to review except for the requirement for rectal endosonography prior to the procedure referred to as TEMS. Compliance: The protocol agreed by the chair of the NSSG. DATA COLLECTION N08-1C-120d The NSSG should agree a network-wide minimum dataset (MDS). The MDS should include the data items required for: the cancer waiting times monitoring, including Going Further on Cancer Waits in accordance with DSCN 20/2008, to the specified timetable as specified in the National Contract for Acute Service; the Cancer Registration Dataset as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services; The MDS must include all items required for the national contract, any additional items should use definitions and codes taken from the National Cancer Databset and the NHS Data Dictionary. The NSSG may agree additional data items. Compliance: The MDS agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. The NSSG for their compliance with this measure should, in consultation with the MDTs, agree the MDS, and the individual MDTs, for compliance with their relevant measure should agree to collect it. N08-1C-121d The NSSG should agree a network-wide policy specifying: NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

34 which team members should collect which portion of the MDS; when each data items should be captured on the patient pathway; how the data will be stored and managed within all appropriate local data systems. Compliance: The policy agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. NETWORK AUDIT Introductory Notes The NSSG for their compliance with this measure should, in consultation with the MDTs, agree the MDS, and the individual MDTs, for compliance with their relevant measure, should agree to abide by it. For review purposes a network audit project is an audit project related to the cancer site or sites of the NSSG and the activities of its MDTs. The same audit project should be carried out by all MDTs for that cancer site in the network, each team's results being seperately identified. The minimum progress needed for the NSSG's compliance with this measure (since audit is a long and multistage process) is that the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs agrees at least one network audit project with the network board, with any necessary sources of funding agreed with commissioners from elsewhere. The individual MDTs, for compliance with their relevant MDT measure should agree to participate in the audit. See appendix 1 for audit. N08-1C-122d The NSSG should agree a network audit project, with any necessary resourcing, with the network board. See appendix 1 for audit. Additional projects may be agreed and funded. Compliance: The project agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. An agreed summary is sufficient provided it shows compliance with the measure. N08-1C-123d The NSSG should annually review the progress of the network audit project or discuss the results of the completed network audit project. See appendix 1 for audit. Compliance: Written confirmation of an annual review sufficient to show compliance with the measures. CANCER RESEARCH NETWORK N08-1C-124d Compliance with this measure automatically confers compliance with measure 08-1C-122d, for the NSSG and any MDTs which have taken part in the audit project. The NSSG should discuss at least annually a report from each of its MDTs, including the following points as related to the MDTs activity during the preceding year: the MDTs response to the approved clinical trials and other well designed studies list; the MDTs recruitment into clinical trials and other well designed studies. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

35 The following should be present at the discussion: the chair of the NSSG or a nominated representative; the lead clinician of the MDT or nominated representative from that MDT; the clinical lead of the research network or a nominated representative from the research network. Compliance: Confirmation of discussion regarding trials sufficient to show compliance with the measure. The discussion with various individual MDTs may take place at different meetings of the NSSG. N08-1C-125d The NSSG and the clinical lead of the research network should agree remedial actions for improving recruitment into approved trials and other well designed studies with each of its MDTs, following its meeting to discuss the MDTs' recruitment. Compliance: The remedial actions agreed by the chair of the NSSG and the research clinical lead. It is acceptable for them to agree that no remedial action is needed for a given MDT if the accrual is satisfactory. The outcome for each of the MDTs which relate to that NSSG should be agreed for compliance with the measure. PROPOSALS FOR SERVICE DELIVERY PLAN N08-1C-126d The NSSG should agree proposed service developments for its cancer site for three contracting years, as advice to the board for the network proposed service delivery plan. Compliance: The plan agreed by the chair of the group. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

36 TOPIC 08-1D-1 FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCALITY GROUP Introduction See the introduction to cancer network - Topic 1A. The measures here in Topic 1D should be applied to each locality group in the network. The responsibility for review purposes lies with the chair of the locality group and each set of separate results count as the review of each separate locality group. Previously designated centres and unit groups should be put forward for review as locality groups. It should be noted that the accountability of individual statutory organisations for the collective commissioning and provision of cancer services, as well as their effective collective working, will be reviewed through the concept of the locality group. COLORECTAL SPECIFIC MEASURES Introduction These measures should be applied to each locality group, which, according to the network agreement (Topic 1A: cancer networks - colorectal specific measures), encompasses a hospital(s) which should provide a colorectal diagnostic service. They should be applied separately for each diagnostic service in the locality, and the compliance regarding each service should count separately towards the review of the locality group. If the locality group is not agreed as providing a diagnostic service, these measures are not applicable. If the group is agreed as having to provide a service but has not provided one, these measures should be applied but counted as non-compliant. If it has provided, say, one service in one hospital but not fulfilled the agreement to provide a service in another of its hospitals, it would be non-compliant regarding the 'missing' service, but these measures should still be applied regarding the service which has been provided, and compliance judged accordingly. The responsibility for the purposes of peer review, for measures 08-1D-101d to 08-1D-103d, lies with the chair of the locality group. PROVISION OF THE COLORECTAL DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE N08-1D-101d There should be a single named lead clinician with responsibility for the colorectal diagnostic service who has a list of responsibilities for the role, agreed with the lead clinician of the local trust. The lead clinician should be a consultant. Compliance: The named lead clinician for the diagnostic service, agreed by the lead clinician of the host trust. The list of responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the diagnostic service and the lead clinician of the host trust. N08-1D-102d There should be administrative personnel with time specified in their list of duties for assessing and prioritising colorectal referrals from primary care to the referral contact point of the diagnostic service and for arranging appointments for investigational procedures. The actual number of personnel per service and actual amount of time specified are not subject to review. Compliance: The named personnel and their list of duties, agreed by the relevant hospital manager. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

37 Provision of Rectal Endosonography Introduction The next measure applies to each locality group which, according to the network agreement (Topic 1A - cancer networks, colorectal specific measures) hosts a diagnostic service which should provide rectal endosonography. The same consideration regarding applicability and compliance is relevant here as for the measures on provision of the diagnostic service itself. N08-1D-103d There should be the facilities and personnel for rectal endosonography provided by a colorectal diagnostic service(s) in the locality. The capacity of the endosonography service is not subject to review. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the facilities and personnel. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

38 TOPIC 08-2D-2 - COLORECTAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM (MDT) Introduction This section replaces section 08-2D-1. To ensure that designated specialists work effectively together in teams such that decisions regarding all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and care of individual patients and decisions regarding the team's operational policies are multidisciplinary decisions. To ensure that care is given according to recognised guidelines (including guidelines for onward referrals) with appropriate information being collected to inform clinical decision-making and to support clinicl governance/audit. to ensure that mechanisms are in place to support entry of eligable patients into clinical trials, subject to patients giving fully informed consent. The responsibility for review purposes for measures 08-2D-201 and 08-2D-202 lies with the lead clinician of the host trust (see Topic 1A). MDT LEADERSHIP N08-2D-201 There should be a single named lead clinician for the colorectal MDT who should then be a core team member. The lead clinician of the MDT should have the responsibilities of the position with the lead clinician of the host trust. The role of lead clinical of the MDT should not of itself imply chronological seniority, superior experience of superior clinical ability. Compliance: Named lead clinician for the MDT agreed by the lead clinician of the host trust. MDT STRUCTURE The written responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and clinician of the host trust. See appendix 2 for an illustration of the responsibilities of this role. N08-2D-202 The MDT should provide the names of the core team members. The core team specific to the colorectal cancer MDT should include: two colorectal surgeons; a clinical oncologist who takes responsibility for radiotherapy for rectal carcinoma; an oncologist who takes responsibility for chemotherapy; This may be the clinical oncologist who is also responsible for radiotherapy for rectal carcinoma, or it may be another oncologist, clinical or medical. imaging specialist; histopathologist; colonoscopist of any of the following disciplines: surgeon, physician or specialist nurse; colorectal nurse specialist; MDT co-ordinator/secretary; an NHS-employed member of the core or extended team should be NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

39 nominated as having specific responsibility for users' issues and information for patients and carers; a member of the core team nominated as the person responsible for ensuring recruitment into clinical trials and other well designed studies is integrated into the function of the MDT. Where a medical specialty is referred to, the core team member should be a consultant. Where a medical skill rather than a specialty is referred to, this may be provided by one or more of the core members or by a career grade non-consultant medical staff member. The co-ordinator/secretary role needs different amounts of time depending on team workload. See appendix 2 for an illustration of the responsibilities of this role. The co-ordinator and secretarial roles may be filled by two different named individuals or the same one. It need not occupy the whole of an individual's job description. There may be additional core members agreed for the team besides those listed above. Compliance: Name of each core team member with their role, agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. The reviewers should record in their assessment each case where the post(s) needed to provide the minimum core membership, for a given listed role in the measure, is unfilled or non-existent, or existing posts cannot provide the service. This does not refer to mere holiday or sickness absence, or less than 67% attendance, and it refers only to the core member roles listed in the measure, not to additional roles that the MDT has decided locally to include as core members, e.g. from the list in the 'extended MDT' measure. The reviewers should identify the particular missing roles and identify the particular MDT in the report. MDT SPECIALISING IN ANAL CANCER Introduction The next three measures should be applied to any colorectal MDT treating patients with anal cancer, with curative intent. N08-2D-203 The MDT should have at least one and no more than two consultant surgical core members, under whose care all operations for anal cancer take place for the patients of the MDT. Compliance: The name(s) of the relevant core member(s) agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the team. N08-2D-204 The MDT should have at least one and no more than two consultant clinical oncology core members under whose care all curative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy (including chemo-radiotherapy) for anal cancer takes place, for the patients of the MDT. Compliance: The name(s) of the relevant core member(s) agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the team. N08-2D-205 The MDT should be the team or one of the teams named in the network agreement for anal cancer and the network referral guideline for anal cancer (measures 08-1A-205 and 08-1A-207). NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

40 Compliance: The network agreement and referral guideline. It is expected and even intended that the measures relating to colorectal MDTs which specialise in the treatment of anal cancer will normally result in a network either having only one such MDT or even referring all its patients to a specialised MDT for anal cancer in a neighbouring network. In a very few of the largest networks, more than one such MDT might be feasible although even in this case, they should seriously consider having only one MDT for anal cancer. The reviewers should comment specifically in their report where there are multiple MDTs for anal cancer in a network of around average or less than average size. If the MDT is not agreed as a specialised MDT for anal cancer by the network this should be commented on specifically in the report, but the MDT should still be reviewed against the rest of the relevant measures. N08-2D-206 The MDT should send a team member as a representative to at least two thirds of the network site specific group (NSSG) meetings. MDT MEETINGS Compliance: The attendance record of the NSSG. N08-2D-207 The team should hold its meetings weekly, record core members' attendance and have a written procedure governing how to deal with referrals which need a treatment planning decision before the next scheduled meeting. (Guidance only - e.g. letters, s or phone calls between certain specified members, restrospective discussion at the next scheduled meeting). Compliance: Attendance records of the meetings. Written procedure agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-208 The MDT should agree cover arrangements for each core member. This refers to the nominating of staff who should in general be expected to provide cover for core members, e.g. a specialist trainee on a consultant's team or core members of the same discipline providing cover for each other. It does not refer to the membership having to provide a person to cover for each and every absence. This aspect is dealt with by the attendance measure above. Where a medical specialty is referred to, the cover for a core member need not be a consultant but should be a specialist trainee or non-career grade. Compliance: Written arrangements agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-209 Core members or their arranged cover (see measures 08-2D-202 and 08-2D-208) should attend at least two thirds of the number of meetings. Compliance: Attendance record of the MDT. The intention is that core members of the team should be personally committed to it, reflected in their personal attendance at a substantial proportion of meetings, not relying instead on their cover arrangements. Reviewers should use their judgement on this matter and should highlight in their report where this commitment is lacking. The reviewers should identify the particular roles where attendance is below the NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

41 OPERATIONAL POLICIES requirements of this measure. N08-2D-212 Besides the regular meetings to discuss individual patients, the team should meet at least annually to discuss, review, agree and record at least some operational policies. Compliance: Written confirmation of at least one meeting agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT to illustrate the recording of at least some operational policies. N08-2D-213 There should be an operational policy for the team whereby it is intended that all new cancer patients will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team for discussion of initial treatment plan. As stated in the Cancer Reform Strategy, the care of all patients should be formally reviewed by a MDT. Compliance: The written operational policy agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-214 The MDT should have an agreed policy whereby after a patient is given a diagnosis of cancer, the patient's general practitioner (GP) is informed of the diagnosis by the end of the following working day. The MDT should have completed an audit against this policy of the timeliness of notification to GPs of the diagnosis of cancer. Compliance: The written policy agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. The written results of the audit. N08-2D-215 There should be an operational policy whereby a single named key worker for the patient's care at a given time is identified by the MDT members for each individual patient and the name and contact number of the current key worker is recorded in the patient's case notes. The responsibility for ensuring that the key worker is identified should be that of the nurse MDT member(s). The above policy should have been implemented for patients who came under the MDT's care after publication of these measures and who are under their care at the time of the peer review visit. For information: according to the NICE palliative care guidance, a key worker is a person who, with the patient's consent and agreement, takes a key role in co-ordinating the patient's care and promoting continuity, e.g. ensuring the patient knows who to access for information and advice. This is not intened to have the same connotation as the key worker in social work. It may be necessary to agree a single key worker across both a cancer site specific MDT and the specialist palliative care MDT for certain patients. Compliance: The written policy agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. Reviewers should spot check some of the relevant patients case notes. N08-2D-216 The core histology member(s) of the MDT should be taking part in an EQA scheme, either a specialist scheme for the cancer site(s) of the team or a general EQA scheme which has a section covering the cancer site(s) of the team. Compliance: Documentary evidence to show that they are taking part in a relevant EQA. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

42 Their actual performance against the requirments of the EQA is not subject to peer review. Management of Surgical Emergencies Potentially Due to Colorectal Cancer N08-2D-217 The MDT should agree the network guidelines on the management of surgical emergencies related to colorectal cancer (measure 08-1C-116d). Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. Secondary to Secondary Referral Policy N08-2D-218 The MDT should agree the network secondary to secondary referral policy (measure 08-1C-114d). Compliance: The network policy agreed by the lead clinical of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. Colorectal Stenting N08-2D-219 The MDT should agree to the network list of named personnel judged competent for colorectal stenting (measure 08-1C-113d). Compliance: The network list agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. MDT NURSE SPECIALIST MEASURES Introduction Why are there currently 'nursing measures' for MDTs, but no similar requirements for other MDT members? The modern change to MDT working has created and then highly developed the specific role of nurse member, with its related activities which, in full measure, go to make up the role of cancer nurse specialist. The roles of the medical specialties in the MDT have not been so profoundly influenced or so extensively developed by their MDT membership itself, compared to that of the MDT nurse specialist. The role definitions and training requirements of nurse MDT members are not very well 'officially' established outside the MDT world in contrast to the well defined medical specialties with their formal national training requirements (e.g. there were colorectal surgeons and palliative care physicians before there were established colorectal MDTs and specialist palliative care teams).therefore a particularly strong need was perceived for using the measures to define more clearly the role of the nurse member and to set out minimum training requirements for nursing input into MDTs. This is in order to establish these roles more firmly in the NHS infrastructure, and to avoid the situation where MDTs can comply with measures by having generalist nurses who 'sit in' on MDT meetings and sign attendance forms but play no defining role in the team's actual dealings with its patients. N08-2D-220 The MDT should have at least one core nurse specialist who should have successfully completed a programme of study in their specialist area of nursing practice, which has been accredited for at least 20 credits at first degree level or equivalent. It is strongly recommended that if there is more than one core nurse specialist in the MDT they should all be compliant with this measure. Compliance: Confirmation of successful completion of the course/module. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

43 N08-2D-221 The MDT should have agreed a list of responsibilities with each of the core nurse specialists of the team, which includes the following: contributing to the multidisciplinary discussion and patient assessment/care planning decision of the team at their regular meetings; providing expert nursing advice and support to other health professionals in the nurse's specialist area of practice. involvement in clinical audit; leading on patient and carer communication issues and co-ordination of the patient's pathway for patients referred to the team - acting as the key worker or responsible for nominating the key worker for the patient's dealings with the team. Additional responsibilities to those in this measure and the next measure may be agreed. Compliance: The list of responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the core nurse specialist(s). N08-2D-222 The MDT should have agreed a list of responsibilities with at least one of the core nurse specialists of the team, which, in addition to the items listed in measure 08-2D-221, includes: contributing to the management of the service (see note below); utilising research in the nurse's specialist area of practice. 'Management' in this context does not mean clerical tasks involving the documentation on individual patients, i.e. this responsibility does not overlap with the responsibility of the MDT co-ordinator. A list of responsibilities containing all the elements in this measure and the previous measure would encompass all of the four domains of specialist practice required for the role of cancer nurse specialist. Additional responsibilities to those in this and the previous measure may be agreed. Compliance: The list of responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the relevant core nurse specialist(s). N08-2D-223 At least those core members of the team who have direct clinical contact with patients should have attended the national advanced communications skills training. This measure applies only to those disciplines which have direct clinical contact and which are named in the list in the MDT structure measure for core membership. Also, it applies only with regard to members who are in place, i.e. if a team lacks a given core member from that list it should still be counted as compliant with this measure provided those members who are in place, comply. The relevant disciplines include medical, surgical, nursing and allied health professionals. The reviewers should record which core members of those relevant are NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

44 non-compliant. Compliance: Written confirmation of the MDT members who have attended the national advanced communication skills training programme. EXTENDED TEAM N08-2D-224 The MDT should provide the names of members of the extended team for named roles in the team if they are not already offered as core team members. The named extended team for the MDT should include: gastroenterologist; either a core surgical member of a stand-alone liver resection MDT or a core surgical member of a pancreatic MDT which is also being put forward for review as a liver resection MDT; the surgeon in question being one of the surgeons who carries out metastatectomies. This surgical member of the extended MDT plays an advisory role to the core colorectal MDT on liver metastatectomy. thoracic surgeon who has a practice in lung metastatectomy; interventional radiologist who is named in the network guidelines as being competent in lower intestinal stenting; dietician/nutritionist; clinical geneticist/genetics counsellor; liaison psychiatrist/clinical psychologist; a core member of the specialist palliative care team. A MDT being put forward for review as a colorectal MDT and additionally specialising in the treatment of anal cancer, should provide the names of the following members of the extended team: The MDT may choose to name additional extended team members. Although there is not a requirement to have a named social worker as part of the extended team, there should be arrangements in place to access a social worker when required. Compliance: Name of each extended team member with their role, agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. FUNCTIONS OF THE TEAM Providing Patient Centred Care Regarding the liver resection surgeon - the core membership list of their liver resection MDT. Regarding the radiologist - the network list of people judged competent in lower intestinal stenting. N08-2D-225 The MDT should be giving patients the opportunity of a permanent record or summary of at least a consultation between the patient and the doctor when the following are discussed: diagnosis; treatment options and plan; relevant follow-up (discharge) arrangements. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

45 The MDT may, in addition, offer a permanent record of consultations undertaken at other stages of the patient's journey. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the team and see anonymised examples of records given to patients. It is recommended that they are available in languages and formats understandable by patients including local ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. This may necessitate the provision of visual and audio material. N08-2D-226 The MDT should have undertaken or be undertaking an exercise during the previous two years prior to review or completed self-assessment to obtain feedback on patients experience of the services offered. The exercise should at least ascertain whether patients were offered: a key worker; the information for patients (written or otherwise) (see measure 08-2D-228); the opportunity of a permanent record or summary of a consultation at which their treatment options were discussed. The exercise may consist of a survey, questionnaire, focus group or other method. There may be additional items covered. It is recommended that other aspects of patient experience are covered. Compliance: The results (complete or in progress) of the exercise. N08-2D-227 Exercises in 08-2D-226 which have been completed during the previous two years should have been presented and discussed at an MDT meeting and the team should have implemented at least one action point arising from the exercise. Compliance: The results (complete or in progress) of the exercise. A report of the actions taken. N08-2D-228 The MDT should provide written material for patients and carers which includes: information specific to that MDT about local provision of the services offering the treatment for that cancer site; information about patient involvement groups and patient self-help groups; information about the services offering psychological, social and spiritual/cultural support, if available; information specific to the MDT's cancer site or group of cancers about the disease and its treatment options (including names and functions/roles of the team treating them). Compliance: The written (visual and audio if used - see note below) material. It is recommended that it is available in languages and formats understandable by patients including local ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. This may necessitate the provision of visual and audio material. For the purpose of self-assessment the team should confirm the written information which is routinely offered to patients. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

46 TREATMENT PLANNING DECISION N08-2D-229 The core MDT, at their regular meetings, should agree and record individual patient's treatment plans. A record should be made of the treatment plan. The record should include: the identity of the patients discussed; the multidisciplinary treatment planning decision (i.e. to which modality(s) of treatment-surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, biological therapy or supportive care, or combinations of the same, they are to be referred to for consideration); in the case of patients with anal cancer, where the MDT under review does not treat anal cancer, whether the patient is referred to the network's nominated anal cancer MDT. A therapeutic operation may in effect form part of the initial investigation and staging procedure to render the patient suitable for discussion and for a subsequent treatment planning decision. This operation should be recorded. Compliance: Anonymised examples of the record of meeting and individual anonymised treatment plans. CLINICAL GUIDELINES Introduction Only exactly what is required in the list above is necessary for evidence. Detailed minutes of the content of discussions over patients are not required for evidence. For review purposes patient specific information should be anonymised. It is recommended that this essential information is recorded on a MDT decision proforma as well as in individual patient's notes. The next measure (08-2D-230) deals with the clinical management of colorectal cancer in general. The responsibility for review purposes for this lies with the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs should produce the agreed network-wide clinical guidelines. The individual MDT for their compliance with 08-2D-230 should agree to them. There follow two measures (2D-231 and 2D-232) dealing with the clinical management of three specific situations in this area of practice: anal cancer resection of liver metastases Again, for compliance, the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs should produce the agreed network-wide clinical guidelines. The individual MDT for their compliance with these measures should agree to them. Finally there are three measures (2D-233, 2D-234 and 2D-235) which deal with referral of patients between different MDTs. In the area of practice covered by the revised colorectal IOG, the measures only cover inter-team referrals for the same three clinical situations mentioned above, i.e. anal cancer and resection of liver metastases. Because the establishment of specialist MDTs for these areas of practice may involve a degree of service reconfiguration, the responsibility for review purposes for producing these last three guidelines lies with the network board. For their compliance, the board, in consultation with the NSSG, should produce the network-wide guidelines on referral between MDTs and the individual MDT, for their NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

47 compliance with these measures, should agree to them. N08-2D-230 The MDT should agree specified, network-wide clinical guidelines* with the NSSG for colorectal cancer in general. Where there are agreed national clinical guidelines the network and the MDT should accept these. *i.e. how a given patient should be clinically managed (usually at the level of which modality of treatment is indicated for a given set of clinical circumstances, rather than detailed regimens or details of surgical techniques etc.) More details of regimens and techniques may be agreed if desired. See 08-1C-103d. Compliance: The clinical guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-231 The MDT should agree the network guidelines for the clinical management of anal cancer (Topic 1C). Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-232 The MDT should agree the network guidelines on the resection of liver metastases (Topic 1C). Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-233 The MDT should agree the network referral guidelines between teams for anal cancer (Topic 1A). Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG and chair of the network board. N08-2D-234 The MDT should agree the network referral guidelines between teams for the resection of liver metastases (Topic 1A). Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT, the chair of the NSSG and the chair of the network board. Investigation Protocol The diagnosis and assessment of colorectal cancer is shared between the MDT and the colorectal diagnostic service. A network-wide investigation protocol should govern this process and should define the respective roles in this of the MDT and the diagnostic service. The responsibility for review purposes for producing this lies with the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs, the network cancer imaging group and the network cancer pathology group. For compliance the NSSG should produce the protocol, and the individual MDT for their compliance with measure 08-2D-237 should agree to it. N08-2D-235 The MDT should agree the network investigation protocol for colorectal cancer (Topic 1C). Compliance: The network investigation protocol, agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. DATA COLLECTION NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

48 N08-2D-236 The MDT should agree the same minimum dataset (MDS) with other MDTs of the same cancer site(s) across the network (network-wide MDS). The MDS should include the data items required for: the cancer waiting times monitoring, including Going Further on Cancer Waits in accordance with DSCN 20/2008, to the specified timetable as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services; the Cancer Registration Dataset as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services. The MDS must include all items required for the nartional contract, any additional items should use definitions and codes taken from the National Cancer Dataset and the NHS Data Dictionary. The network MDS may include additional data items. See 08-1C-120d. Compliance: The MDS agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance the NSSG should produce the agreed MDS and the individual MDT for their compliance with this measure should agree to collect it. N08-2D-237 The MDT should have started to record the MDS or their portion of the MDS for each patients on proformas and/or electronically retrievable form (see 08-1C-121d). Compliance: Anonymised examples of the record data for individual patients. NETWORK AUDIT Introductory Notes For the purpose of self-assessment the team should confirm that they have started to record the MDS in compliance with the details of the measure. For review purposes a network audit project is an audit project related to the cancer site or sites of the NSSG and the activities of its MDTs. The same audit project should be carried out by all MDTs for that cancer site in the network, each team's results being separately identified. The minimum progress needed for the NSSG's compliance with this measure (since audit is a long and multistage process) is that the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs agrees at least one network audit project with the network board, with any necessary funding agreed with commissioners from elsewhere. The individual MDTs, for compliance with their relevant MDT measure, should agree to participate in the audit. See appendix 1 for audit. N08-2D-238 The MDT should agree to participate in the network audit project with the necessary funding, agreed with the NSSG. See eppendix 1 for audit. See 08-1C-122d. Compliance: The project agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-239 The MDT should annually review the progress of the project or present the results of the completed network audit project to the NSSG for discussion at one of their meetings. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

49 For MDTs which have previously been peer reviewed, the project should have been completed since that peer review. See 08-1C-123d. Compliance: Written confirmation of review of progress of audit sufficient to show compliance with the measure. CANCER RESEARCH NETWORK Compliance with this measure automatically confers compliance with the previous measure. N08-2D-240 The MDT should produce a written response annually to the NSSG's approved list of trials and other well designed studies, which fulfils the following: for each clinical trial and well designed study the MDT should agree to enter patients or state the reason why it will not be able to; the remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG. Compliance: The response including remedial action agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. This measure should not be taken as having to apply to anal cancer because of its rarity and the possible lack of NCRN-approved trials current at the time of peer review. The MDT may wish to include trials on anal cancer if it so chooses. N08-2D-241 The remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG, should of been carried out. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the implementation of the recommended actions. MDT WORKLOAD N08-2D-242 The MDT should discuss and make a treatment planning decision on 60 or more new cases per year. The number should be calculated as follows: They should be cases of colorectal/anal cancer presenting to the MDT for the first time in the patient's case history. The number should be averaged over the two complete calendar years prior to the peer review visit. The number of cases of colonic, rectal and anal cancer should be summated as one total, combined figure. A new case counts whatever their initial treatment modality is, and whether they present with metastatic disease, or the primary or both. Compliance: The total number of cases as above, agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-243 Each named core surgical member of the MDT should perform 20 or more operative procedures (as defined below) for colorectal cancer, per year. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

50 The number of operative procedures should be calculated as follows: It should be recorded separately for each individual core surgeon. It should be averaged over the two complete calendar years prior to the peer review visit. The procedures should be those performed with the intention of loco-regional clearance of disease. Procedures involving colonic cancer, rectal cancer. Procedures on anal cancer do not count. Only those procedures should count where the core surgical team member has scrubbed up, as evidenced by their name appearing on the operation notes, as a participating surgeon in the procedure. Emergency procedures count providing the other criteria are fulfilled. Procedures performed in the private sector count, providing the other criteria are fulfilled and the case is discussed at the regular meeting of the MDT under review. Compliance: The named core surgical MDT members with their respective numbers of procedures. OPERATIONAL POLICY SPECIFIC TO ANAL CANCER MDTs N08-2D-244 A MDT being put forward for review as a colorectal MDT additionally specialising in the treatment of anal cancer should fulfil the following: In the radiotherapy department which hosts the radiotherapy practice of the MDT there should be no more than two clinical oncologists who practice radiotherapy (as a single modality or as part of chemotherapy) for anal cancer, and they should be core members of the MDT. Where more than one department is associated as above, with the MDT, then each such department should comply separately with this measure for the MDT to comply. There need not be two clinical oncologists - one would be compliant. Compliance: The list of core members of the MDT, agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. Reviewers should enquire as to the working practice of the MDT. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

51 TOPIC 2D-3 - STAND ALONE LIVER RESECTION MDT Objectives To ensure that designated specialists work effectively together in teams such that decisions regarding all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and care of individual patients and decisions regarding the team's operational policies are multidisciplinary decisions. To ensure that care is given according to recognised guidelines (including guidelines for onward referrals) with appropriate information being collected to inform clinical decision-making and to support clinical governance/audit. To ensure that mechanisms are in place to support entry of eligible patients into clinical trials, subject to patients giving fully informed consent. MDT LEADERSHIP N08-2D-301 There should be a single named lead clinician for the MDT who should then be a core lead team member. The lead clinician of the MDT should have agreed the responsibilities of the position with the lead clinician of the host trust. The role of the lead clinician of the MDT should not itself imply chronological seniority, superior experience or superior clinical ability. TEAM CRITERIA Compliance: Named lead clinician for the MDT agreed by the lead clinician of the host trust. The written responsibilities agreed by the clinician of the MDT and lead clinician of the host trust. See appendix 2 for an illustration of the responsibilities of this role. N08-2D-302 The MDT should be listed as part of the services of a named locality in the network; it should be the only liver resection MDT in the network; it should have a catchment population for referral for resection of liver metastases of 2 million or more. Compliance: The list of services of the locality. MDT STRUCTURE The network configuration for colorectal cancer. The catchment population. If the MDT is non-compliant with the team criteria, this should be noted as a major issue in the review report, but the team should still be reviewed against the rest of these liver resection MDT measures. N08-2D-303 The MDT should provide the names of core team members for named roles in the team. The core team specific to the stand-alone liver resection MDT should include: 2 or more hepato-biliary surgeons; histopathologist; imaging specialist; nurse specialist; NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

52 MDT co-ordinator/secretary; an NHS-employed member of the core or extended team should be nominated as having specific responsibility for users' issues; an oncologist (clinical or medical) who takes responsibility for chemotherapy given in combination with metastatectomy. a member of the core team nominated as the person responsible for ensuring recruitment into clinical trials and other well designed studies is integrated into the function of the MDT. Whether an oncologist is named as a core team member depends on the agreements with referring MDTs. Where a medical specialty is referred to, the core team member should be a consultant. The cover for this member need not be a consultant. Where a medical skill rather than a specialty is referred to, this may be provided by one or more of the core members or by a career grade non-consultant medical staff member. The medically qualified core member(s) depend on the cancer site of the MDT. The co-ordinator/secretary role needs different amounts of time depending on team workload. See appendix 2 for an illustration of the responsibilities of this role. The co-ordinator and secretarial roles may be filled by two different named individuals or the same one. It need not occupy the whole of an individual's job description. There may be additional core members agreed for the team besides those listed above. Compliance: Name of each core team member agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. The reviewers should record in their assessment each case where the post(s) needed to provide the minimum core membership for a given listed role in the measure, is unfilled or non-existent, or existing posts cannot provide the service. This does not refer to mere holiday or sickness absence, or less than 67% attendance, and it refers only to the core member roles listed in the measure, not to additional roles that the MDT has decided locally to include as core members, e.g. from the list in the 'extended MDT' measure. The reviewers should identify the particular missing roles and identify the particular MDT in the report. N08-2D-304 The MDT should send a team member as a representative to at least two thirds of the Colorectal NSSG meetings. Compliance: The attendance record of the NSSG. N08-2D-305 Liver metastatectomies from the catchment area of the MDT should only be performed under the care of a core surgical member of the liver resection MDT. MDT MEETINGS Compliance: The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the hospitals in the catchment area. N08-2D-306 The MDT should meet at an agreed frequency, record core members' attendance and have a written procedure governing how to deal with referrals which need a treatment planning decision before the next scheduled meeting (guidance only - e.g. letters, s or phone calls between specified members, retrospective NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

53 discussion at the next scheduled meeting). Compliance: Attendance records of the meeting. Written procedure agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-307 The MDT should agree cover arrangements for each core member. This refers to the nominating of staff who should in general be expected to provide cover for core members e.g. a specialist trainee on a consultant's team or core members of the same discipline providing cover for each other. It does not refer to the member having to provide a person to cover for each and every absence. This aspect is dealt with by the attendance measure above. Where a medical specialty is referred to, the cover for a core member need not be a consultant but if not, should be a specialist trainee or non-career grade. Compliance: Written arrangements agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-308 Core members or their arranged cover (see measures 08-2D-303 and 08-2D-207) should attend at least two thirds of the number of meetings. Compliance: Attendance record of the MDT. OPERATIONAL POLICIES The intention is that core members of the team should be personally committed to it, reflected in their personal attendance at a substantial proportion of meetings, not relying instead on their cover arrangements. Reviewers should use their judgement on this matter and should highlight in their report where this commitment is lacking. The reviewers should identify the particular roles where attendance is below the requirement of this measure. N08-2D-309 Besides the regular meetings to discuss individual patients, the team should meet at least annually to discuss, review, agree and record at least some operational policies. Compliance: Written confirmation of at least one meeting agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT to illustrate the recording of at least some operational policies, evidenced in the annual report. N08-2D-310 The MDT should agree a follow up policy with the referring colorectal MDTs in its catchment area, specifying: which team should follow up the patient after liver metastatectomy; specific indications for referral back to the liver resection MDT if the referring colorectal MDTs are agreed as being involved in follow up after metastatectomy. Compliance: The policy, agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the lead clinicians of the referring colorectal MDTs. The team may agree additional points in the follow up policy. These are not subject to review. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

54 N08-2D-311 All the metastatectomies performed in the name of the liver resection MDT should be carried out in the same named hospital. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the team. N08-2D-312 The named hospital in which the metastatectomies of the team are carried out should have an ITU and HDU on site. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the facilities of the hospital. MDT NURSE SPECIALIST MEASURES Introduction Why are there currently "nursing measures" for MDTs, but no similar requirements for other MDT members? The modern change to MDT working has created and then highly developed the specific role of nurse member, with its related activities which, in full measure, go to make up the role of cancer nurse specialist. The roles of the medical specialties in the MDT have not been so profoundly influenced or so extensively developed by their MDT membership itself, compared to that of the MDT nurse specialist. The role definitions and training requirements of nurse MDT members are not very well "officially" established outside the MDT world in contrast to the well defined medical specialties with their formal national training requirements (e.g. there were colorectal surgeons and palliative care physicians, before there were established colorectal MDTs and specialist palliative care teams). Therefore a particularly strong need was perceived for using the measures to define more clearly the role of the nurse specialist and to set out minimum training requirements for nursing input into MDTs. This is in order to establish these roles more firmly in the NHS infrastructure, and to avoid the situation where MDTs can comply with measures by having generalist nurses who "sit in" on MDT meetings and sign attendance forms but play no defining role in the team's actual dealings with its patients. N08-2D-313 The MDT should have at least one core nurse specialist who should have successfully completed a programme of study in their specialist area of nursing practice, which has been accredited for at least 20 credits at first degree level or equivalent. It is strongly recommended that if there is more than one core nurse specialist in the MDT, they should all be compliant with this measure. Compliance: Confirmation of successful completion of the course/module. N08-2D-314 The MDT should have agreed a list of responsibilities, with each of the core nurse specialist(s) of the team, which includes the following: contributing to the multidisciplinary discussion and patient assessment/care planning decision of the team at their regular meetings; providing expert nursing advice and support to other health professionals in the nurse's specialist area of practice. Involvement in clinical audit; leading on patient communication issues and co-ordination of the patient's pathway for patients referred to the team - acting as the key worker or responsible for nominating the key worker for the patient's dealing with the team. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

55 Additional responsibilities to those in this measure and the next measure may be agreed. Compliance: The list of responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the core nurse specialist(s). N08-2D-315 The MDT should have agreed a list of responsibilities with at least one of the core nurse specialist(s) of the team, which, in addition to the items listed in measure 08-2D-314, includes: contributing to the management of the service (see note below); utilising research in the nurse's specialist area of practice. "Management" in this context does not mean clerical tasks involving the documentation on individual patients, i.e. this responsibility does not overlap with the responsibility of the MDT co-ordinator. A list of responsibilities, containing all the elements in this measure and the previous measure, would encompass all of the four domains of specialist practice required for the role of cancer nurse specialist. Additional responsibilities to those in this and the previous measure may be agreed. Compliance: The list of responsibilities agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the relevant core nurse specialist(s). EXTENDED TEAM N08-2D-316 If they have not already been offered as a member of the core team, there should be a core member of the specialist palliative care team included in the extended MDT for liver resection. Apart from having to comply with the measure regarding oncologist team members (measure 08-2D-317), there are no other mandatory measures for the membership of the MDT. The MDT may choose to name additional members of the extended team. This is not subject to review. Compliance: Name of each extended team member (if any), agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT. N08-2D-317 The MDT should have a separate agreement with each referring colorectal MDT specifying that: Either: Any chemotherapy for patients given as combination treatment with metastatectomy is managed by an oncologist from the referring colorectal MDT, who should attend the meetings of the liver resection team at which the patient is discussed. Or: It is managed by a core oncology member of the liver resection MDT. Compliance: The agreement for each referring MDT, authorised by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the lead clinician of the referring MDT. FUNCTIONS OF THE TEAM NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

56 Providing Patient Centred Care N08-2D-318 The MDT should be giving patients the opportunity of a permanent record or summary of at least a consultation between the patient and the doctor when the following are discussed: diagnosis; treatment options and plan; relevant follow up (discharge arrangements). The MDT may, in addition, offer a permanent record of consultations undertaken at other stages of the patient's journey. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire of the working practice of the team and see examples of anonymised records given to patients. It is recommended that they are available in languages and formats understandable by patients including local ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. This may necessitate the provision of visual and audio material. N08-2D-319 The MDT should have undertaken or be undertaking an exercise during the previous two years prior to review to obtain feedback on patients experience of the services offered. The exercise should at least ascertain whether patients were offered: the information for patients (written or otherwise); the opportunity of a permanent record or summary of a consultation at which their treatment options were discussed. The exercise may consist of a survey, questionnaire, focus group or other method. There may be additional items covered. It is recommended that other aspects of patient experience are covered. Compliance: The results (complete or in progress) of the exercise. N08-2D-320 Exercises in 08-2D-319 which have been completed during the previous two years should have been presented and discussed at an MDT meeting and the team should have implemented at least one action point arising from the exercise. Compliance: The results of the exercise. A report of the actions taken. N08-2D-321 The MDT should provide written material for patients and carers which includes: locally specific information about the MDT's liver metastatectomy service with specific contact points; information about the treatment options for liver metastases. Compliance: The written (visual and audio if used - see note below) material. It is recommended that it is available in languages and formats understandable by patients including local ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. This may necessitate the provision of visual and audio material. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

57 TREATMENT PLANNING DECISION N08-2D-322 The core MDT at their regular meetings should agree and record individual patient's treatment plans. A record should be made of the treatment plan. The record should include: the identity of the patients discussed; the multidisciplinary treatment planning decision (i.e. whether the patient should be offered liver metastatectomy and whether it should be offered in combination with chemotherapy). Compliance: Anonymised examples of the record of the meeting and inidivual anonymised treatment plans. Only exactly what is required in the list above is necessary for evidence. Detailed minutes of the content of discussions over patients are not required for evidence. For review purposes patient specific information should be anonymised. It is recommended that this essential information is recorded on an MDT decision proforma as well as in the individual patient's notes. NETWORK GUIDELINES FOR THE RESECTION OF LIVER METASTASES Introduction Clinical Management The development of clinical management guidelines for metastatectomy, aside from deciding the liver resection MDT and referral between teams, doesn't essentially involve questions of service reconfiguration. The responsibility for review purposes therefore for the clinical management guidelines lies with the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance with the relevant measure in Topic 1C, the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs, including a representative of the liver resection MDT should produce the network-wide guidelines. The individual MDT for their compliance with the relevant team measure, should agree to them. Referral Between Teams The decision regarding which MDT should be the liver resection MDT, and which MDTs should refer to it, may involve a degree of service reconfiguration within and between networks. The responsibility for review purposes, therefore, for the referral guidelines between teams is that of the network board (in consultation with the NSSG). For compliance with the relevant measure in Topic 1A, the network board should produce the guideline and the individual MDT, for their compliance with the relevant team measure, should agree to it. Clinical Management Guidelines N08-2D-323 The MDT should agree with the colorectal NSSG, the network-wide guidelines for the resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (measure 08-1C-111d). They should cover the following: the indications (in terms of specific clinical and investigational parameters) for metastatectomy and for its use in combination with chemotherapy; the stage in the assessment process that a patient should be transferred to the care of the liver resection team and therefore, which parts of the assessment protocol should be the responsibility of the colorectal MDT and which parts the responsibility of the liver resection team. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

58 More details of techniques or regimens may be agreed if desired. They are not subject to review by this measure. Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the chair of the colorectal NSSG. Referral Between Teams N08-2D-324 The MDT should agree with the network board the network-wide guidelines stating the named liver resection MDT to which the named colorectal MDTs in the network should refer patients, for consideration of metastatectomy. The referring MDTs may be from more than one network. Compliance: The network guidelines naming the relevant MDTs, agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT under review, and the chair of the network board. DATA COLLECTION N08-2D-325 The MDT should agree the same minimum dataset (MDS) with other MDTs of the same cancer site(s) across the network (network-wide MDS). The MDS should include the data items required for: the cancer waiting times monitoring, including Going Further on Cancer Waits, in accordance with DSCN 20/2008, to the specified timetable as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services; the Cancer Registration Dataset a specified in the National Contract for Acute Services. The MDS must include all items required for the national contract, any additional items should use definitions and codes taken from the National Cancer Dataset and the NHS Data Dictionary. The network MDS may include additional data items. See 08-1C-120d. Compliance: The MDS agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance the NSSG should produce the agreed MDS and the individual MDT for their compliance with this measure should agree to collect it. N08-2D-326 The MDT should have started to record the MDS or their portion of the MDS for each patient on proformas and/or in an electronically retrievable form (see 08-1C-121d). Compliance: Anonymised examples of the record data for individual patients. NETWORK AUDIT Introductory Notes For the purpose of self-assessment the team should confirm that they have started to record the MDS in compliance with the details of the measure. For review purposes a network audit project is an audit project related to the cancer site or sites of the NSSG and the activities of its MDTs. The same audit project should be carried out by all MDTs for NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

59 that cancer site in the network, each team's results being separately identified. The mimimum progress needed for the NSSG's compliance with this measure (since audit is a long and multistage process) is that the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs agrees at least one network audit project with the network board, with any necessary sources of funding agreed with commissioners from elsewhere. N08-2D-327 The MDT should agree to participate in the network audit project with the necessary funding, agreed with the NSSG. see appendix 1 for audit. see 08-1C-122d. Compliance: The project agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-328 The MDT should annually review the progress of the project or present the results of the completed network audit project to the NSSG for discussion at one of their meetings. For MDTs which have previously been peer reviewed, the project should have been completed since that previous peer review. See 08-1C-123d. Compliance: Written confirmation of review of progress of audit to show compliance with the measure. CANCER RESEARCH NETWORK Compliance with this measure automatically confers compliance with the previous measure. N08-2D-329 The MDT should produce a written response annually to the NSSG's approved list of trials and other well designed studies, which fulfils the following: for each clinical trial and well designed study the MDT should agree to enter patients or state the reason why it will not be able to; the remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG. Compliance: The response including remedial action agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. N08-2D-330 The remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG should have been carried out. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the implemendation of the recommeded actions. MDT WORKLOAD This is covered by the requirement for liver resection MDTs to have a catchment population of 2 million or more and is dealt with by measure 08-2D-303. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

60 TOPIC 2F-3 - ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR SPECIALIST PANCREATIC MDT WHICH IS BEING PUT FORWARD FOR REVIEW ALSO AS A LIVER RESECTION MDT Objectives To ensure that designated specialists work effectively together in teams such that decisions regarding all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and care of individual patients and decisions regarding the team's operational policies are multidisciplinary decisions. To ensure that care is given according to recognised guidelines (including guidelines for onward referrals) with appropriate information being collected to inform clinical decision-making and to support clinical governance/audit. To ensure that mechanisms are in place to support entry of eligible patients into clinical trials, subject to patients giving fully informed consent. TEAM CRITERIA N08-2F-301 The MDT should be listed (as a liver resection MDT) as part of the services of a named locality in the network. It should be the only such MDT in the network. It should have a catchment population for referral for resection of liver metastases of two million or more. Compliance: The list of services of the locality. MDT STRUCTURE The network configuration for colorectal cancer. The catchment population. If the MDT is non-compliant with the team criteria, this should be noted as a major issue in the review report but the team should still be reviewed against the rest of these liver resection MDT measures. There are no mandatory core team members for the liver resection MDT in addition to those listed for the specialist pancreatic team. The team may wish to name additional core team members specifically for the liver resection work. This is not subject to review. N08-2F-302 The MDT should send a team member as a representative to at least two thirds of the colorectal cancer NSSG group meetings. Compliance: The attendance record of the NSSG. N08-2F-303 Liver metastatectomies from the catchment area of the MDT should only be performed under the care of a core surgical member of the liver resection MDT. MDT MEETINGS Compliance: The reviewers should enquire of the working practice in the catchment area. The MDT should discuss cases referred for resection of liver metastases, as and when they are referred, during the regular meetings of the specialist pancreatic MDT. There is no separate measure which deals with this. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

61 OPERATIONAL POLICIES N08-2F-304 The MDT should agree a follow up policy with the referring colorectal MDTs in its catchment area, specifying: which team should follow up the patient after liver metastatectomy; specific indications for referral back to the liver resection MDT, if the referring colorectal MDTs are agreed as being involved in follow up, after metastatectomy. Compliance: The policy, agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the lead clinicians of the referring colorectal MDTs. The teams may agree additional points in the follow up policy. These are not subject to review. N08-2F-305 The named hospital in which the metastatectomies of the team are carried out should have an ITU and HDU on site. KEY WORKER Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the facilities of the hospital. The patient's key worker should have been specified previously by their original colorectal MDT. There are no separate measures for this, for the liver resection team. EXTENDED TEAM There are no mandatory members for the extended team for liver resection, in addition to those listed for the specialist pancreatic team. The team may wish to name additional members for the extended team specifically for the liver resection work. This is not subject to review. N08-2F-306 The MDT should have a separate agreement with each referring colorectal MDT specifying that: Either: Any chemotherapy for patients given as combination treatment with metastatectomy is managed by an oncologist from the referring colorectal MDT, who should attend the meetings of the liver resection team at which the patient is discussed. Or: It is managed by a core oncology member of the liver resection MDT. Compliance: The agreement for each referring MDT, authorised by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the lead clinician of the referring MDT. PATIENT CENTRED CARE N08-2F-307 The MDT should provide written material for patients and carers which includes: locally specific information about the MDT's liver metastatectomy service, with specific contact points; information about the treatment options for liver metastases. Compliance: The written (visual and audio if used - see note below) material. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

62 It is recommended that it is available in languages and formats understandable by patients, including local ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. This may necessitate the provision of visual and audio material. NETWORK GUIDELINES FOR THE RESECTION OF LIVER METASTASES Introduction Clinical Management The development of clinical management guidelines for metastatectomy, aside from deciding the liver resection MDT and referral between teams, doesn't essentially involve questions of service reconfiguration. The responsibility for review purposes therefore for the clinical management guidelines lies with the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance with the relevant measure in Topic 1C, the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs, including a representative of the liver resection MDT, should produce the network-wide guidelines. The individual MDT for their compliance with the relevant team measure should agree to them. Referral Between Teams The decision regarding which MDT should be the liver resection MDT, and which MDTs should refer to it, may involve a degree of service reconfiguration within and between networks. The responsibility for review purposes, therefore, for the referral guidelines between teams is that of the network board (in consultation with the NSSG). For compliance with the relevant measure in Topic 1A, the network board should produce the guideline and the individual MDT for their compliance with the relevant team measure, should agree to it. Clinical Management Guidelines N08-2F-308 The MDT should agree with the colorectal NSSG, the network-wide guidelines for the resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (measure 08-1C-111d). They should cover the following: the indications (in terms of specific clinical and investigational parameters) for metastatectomy and for its use in combination with chemotherapy; the stage in the assessment process that a patient should be transferred to the care of the liver resection team and therefore, which parts of the assessment protocol should be the responsibility of the colorectal MDT and which parts the responsibility of the liver resection team. More details of techniques or regimens may be agreed if desired. They are not subject to review by this measure. Compliance: The network guidelines agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT and the chair of the colorectal NSSG. Referral Between Teams N08-2F-309 The MDT should agree with the network board the network-wide guidelines, stating the named liver resection MDT to which the named colorectal MDTs in the network should refer patients for consideration of metastatectomy (measure 08-1A-210d). The referring MDTs may be from more than one network. Compliance: The network guidelines naming the relevant MDTs, agreed by the lead clinician of the liver resection MDT under review and the chair of the network board. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

63 DATE COLLECTION N08-2F-310 The MDT should agree the same minimum dataset (MDS) with other MDTs of the same cancer site(s) across the network (network-wide MDS). The MDS should include the data items required for: the cancer waiting times monitoring, including Going Further on Cancer Waits, in accordance with DSCN 20/2008, to the specified timetable as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services; the Cancer Registration Dataset as specified in the National Contract for Acute Services. The MDS must include all items required for the national contract, any additional items should use definitions and codes taken from the National Cancer Dataset and the NHS data dictionary. The network MDS may include additional data items. See 08-1C-120d. Compliance: The MDS agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. For compliance the NSSG should produce the agreed MDS and the individual MDTs for their compliance with this measure should agree to collect it. N08-2F-311 The MDT should have started to record the MDS or their portion of the MDS for each patient on proformas and/or in an electronically retrievable form (see 08-1C-121d). Compliance: Anonymised examples of the record data for individual patients. NETWORK AUDIT Introductory Notes For the purpose of self-assessment the team should confirm that they have started to record the MDS in compliance with the details of the measure. For review purposes a network audit project is an audit project related to the cancer site or sites of the NSSG and the activities of its MDTs. The same audit project should be carried out by all MDTs for that cancer site in the network, each team's results being separately identified. The minimum progress needed for the NSSG's compliance with this measure (since audit is a long and multistage process) is that the NSSG in consultation with the MDTs agrees at least one network audit project with the network board, with any necessary sources of funding agreed with commissioners from elsewhere. N08-2F-312 The MDT should agree to participate in the network audit project with the necessary funding, agreed with the NSSG. see appendix 1 for audit. See 08-1C-122d. Compliance: The project agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and the chair of the NSSG. N08-2F-313 The MDT should annually review the progress of the project or present the results NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

64 of the completed network audit project to the NSSG for discussion at one of their meetings. For MDTs which have previously been peer reviewed, the project should have been completed since that previous peer review. See 08-1C-123d. Compliance: Written confirmation of review of progress of audit sufficient to show compliance with the measure. CANCER RESEARCH NETWORK Compliance with this measure automatically confers compliance with the previous measure. N08-2F-314 The MDT should produce a written response annually to the NSSG's approved list of trials and other well designed studies, which fulfils the following: for each clinical trial and well designed study the MDT should agree to enter patients or state the reasons why it will not be able to; the remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG. Compliance: The response including remedial action agreed by the lead clinician of the MDT and chair of the NSSG. N08-2F-315 The remedial action arising from the MDT's recruitment results, agreed with the NSSG should have been carried out. Compliance: The reviewers should enquire as to the implementation of the recommended actions. MDT WORKLOAD This is covered by the requirement for liver resection MDTs to have a catchment population of 2 million or more and is dealt with by measure 08-2F-301. NI COLORECTAL MEASURES GATEWAY No NOV

65 Appendix 1 Network Audit This appendix is to follow APPENDIX 1 GATEWAY No NOV

66 APPENDIX 1 GATEWAY No NOV

67 Appendix 2 - Outline of Roles 2.1 Role of Network (Tumour) Site Specific Groups (NSSGs) Membership Network tumour site-specific groups should be multidisciplinary; with representation from professionals across the care pathway; involve users in their planning and review; and have the active engagement of all MDT leads from the relevant constituent organisations in the network. Service Planning NSSGs should ensure that service planning: is in line with national guidance/standards (including reconfiguration where necessary); covers the whole care pathway; promotes high quality care and reduces inequalities in service delivery; takes account of the views of patients and carers; takes account of opportunities for service and workforce redesign; establishes common guidelines, including clear referral guidelines. NSSGs should: recommend priorities for service development to the network board. (In some networks this is via an advisory clinical group, consisting of membership from chairs of network groups, trust lead clinicians and the network team); ensure decisions become integrated into constituent organisational structures and processes. Service Improvement/Redesign all NSSGs and individual cancer teams should commit to service improvements; process mapping and capacity and demand analyses should become part of the norm; requests for additional resources from NSSGs should be accompanied by evidence of involvement in service improvement/redesign; NSSGs should develop/approve high quality information for patient, for use across the network. Service Quality Monitoring and Evaluation NSSGs should: agree on priorities for common data collection (in line with national priorities e.g. for waiting times, registries and NCASP), but go beyond this where possible; review the quality and completeness of data, recommending corrective action where necessary; produce audit data and participate in open review; ensure services are evaluated by patients and carers; monitor progress on meeting national cancer measures and ensure action plans agreed following peer review are implemented; report identified risks/untoward incidents to ensure learning is spread. Workforce Development NSSGs should: consider the overall workforce requirements for the NSSG; consider the education and training needs of teams and, where appropriate, of individuals; liaise with the network board and with the workforce development confederation to ensure that appropriate workforce numbers and CPD are available; promote links between teams through rotation of staff; develop common recruitment/retention strategies; take account of opportunities for skill mix changes. APPENDIX 2 GATEWAY No NOV

68 Research and Development NSSGs should agree a common approach to research and development, working with the network research team, participating in nationally recognised studies whenever possible. Annual Work Plan and Report NSSGs should: draw the above together in an annual work plan in the context of a prioritised clinical governance development plan, for approval by the network board; ensure this is fed into commissioning, with agreements specifying standards, service developments and improvement, data collection, audit, research, education and training; provide an annual report of activity to feed health economy clinical governance reporting processes. 2.2 The Responsibilities of MDT members Responsibilities of the MDT lead clinician ensure that objectives of MDT working (as laid out in Manual of Cancer Services) are met: to ensure that designated specialists work effectively together in teams such that decisions regarding all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and care of individual patients and decisions regarding the team s operational policies are multidisciplinary decisions; to ensure that care is given according to recognised guidelines (including guidelines for onward referrals) with appropriate information being collected to inform clinical decision making and to support clinical governance/audit; to ensure mechanisms are in place to support entry of eligible patients into clinical trials, subject to patients giving fully informed consent; overall responsibility for ensuring that MDT meeting and team meet peer review quality measures; ensure attendance levels of core members are maintained, in line with quality measures; ensure that target of 100% of cancer patients discussed at the MDT is met; provide link to NSSG either by attendance at meetings or by nominating another MDT member to attend; lead on or nominate lead for service improvement; organise and chair annual meeting examining functioning of team and reviewing operational policies and collate any activities that are required to ensure optimal functioning of the team (e.g. training for team members); ensure MDT s activities are audited and results documented; ensure that the outcomes of the meeting are clearly recorded and clinically validated and that appropriate data collection is supported; ensure target of communicating MDT outcomes to primary care is met. Responsibilities of the MDT Co-ordinator facilitate and co-ordinate the functions of the multidisciplinary team meetings; ensure the appropriate proportions of patients are discussed at MDTs; help with the introduction and changes to proformas used to ensure all patients are discussed, treated appropriately and outcomes are recorded and reviewed. Ensuring patients diagnoses, investigations, and management and treatment plans are completed and added to the patient s notes; managing systems that inform GP s of patient s diagnosis, decisions made at outpatient appointment etc; working with staff to ensure all patients have a booked first appointment, investigation and procedure and record details of patients coming via a different route; working with key MDT members to identify areas where targets are not achieved, undertake process mapping to identify bottlenecks; undertake demand and capacity studies where appropriate; report changes to MDTs on a monthly basis; APPENDIX 2 GATEWAY No NOV

69 data collection and recording of data; to manage the systems according to guidelines, monitoring milestones and submitting the required reports in the given format and required times; keep comprehensive diary of all team meetings; record attendance at meetings; take minutes at the multidisciplinary meetings, type notes back in the required format and distribute to all concerned; the post holder will be expected to be instrumental in the development of databases to capture patient information and report this to the clinicians on a weekly basis; inform lead cancer manager of waiting times for patients when these exceed appropriate targets; ensure lists of patients to be discussed at meetings are prepared and distributes in advance; ensure all correspondence, notes, x-rays, results, etc are available for the meetings; ensure action plans for patient care are produced with agreed reviews; assist in capturing cancer data on all patients and assist in the development of systems to complement the cancer audit system; ensure members or their deputy are advised of meetings and any changes of date, venue, etc. APPENDIX 2 GATEWAY No NOV

70 Produced by Mayden Health - Cover design by Cynergy Healthcare All rights reserved Crown Copyright 2008 National Cancer Action Team