Patients who experience harm provide stories, but who will really engage with their insights and opinions?

Summary

This constructive commentary reflects on two recent related publications, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) report, Variations in the delivery of palliative care services to adults, and an article from Sarcoma UK, Family insights from Dermot’s experience of sarcoma care. Drawing from these publications, Richard, brother-in-law of Dermot, gives a family perspective, calling for a more open discussion around how we can improve palliative care and sarcoma services, and why we must listen and act upon family and patient experience and insight.

Content

Update (9 August 2023): how patient stories are used is the subject of a current 'discovery phase' project led by the NHS Learn from patient safety events (LFPSE) service. See comments below this blog for more information. I believe it needs urgent attention, given my experience below, by ‘innovative’ bodies like HSIB who are meant to be exemplars- much more needs doing involving patients and families at the heart. Please participate.

When my brother-in-law Dermot died from sarcoma, an aggressive cancer, the family were shocked at how fast it progressed, and the difficulties palliative services had in making a difference to his suffering.

We wanted learning to come from our experience so that others need not go through the same trauma.

We had never wanted a media scare story and we were not ‘complaining’ about the valuable NHS and associated services, which we know are on their knees with numerous resourcing and organisational challenges. We referred Dermot’s experience to HSIB because we wanted an investigation to be carried out by this novel, innovative, expert body to learn lessons at a general service system level.

HSIB concluded their findings from the investigation in a report, Variations in the delivery of palliative care services to adults, which we welcome and support. The report touches on a real part of Dermot’s story and does provide a damning indictment of how much palliative services need to improve to provide a key national care service for anyone to access, wherever they live.

However, due to the narrow scope and the methodology it uses it misses, in our opinion, many key issues of Dermot’s experience, all despite hours of our work as a family reading the medical notes, drafting and feeding back our perspectives, many times, over the course of two and half years. Our voice, insights validated by some experts in the field, recollections of what really happened, witness testimony, questions and suggestions, were harder to get fully and authentically expressed in the report. The family were disconcerted and frustrated that there were some key events that were either omitted, misrepresented or post hoc rationalised by services so as to create a story that does not wholly reflect what happened and the effect it had on Dermot and the family. Moreover, what is missed is what the family believe needs to happen to prevent a repeat trauma for others. Because of the complexity of Dermot’s case, we do not believe the report findings if implemented would make a significant enough difference to others with equally complex journeys.

Fortunately, during Dermot’s sarcoma journey, the family made contact with two charities that had a patient advocacy and advice focus from trained staff with clinical nurse specialist experience. One was a local cancer charity that really understood the local services available to us, and the other was Sarcoma UK that understood sarcoma. Both encouraged open feedback and discussion from patients about what has to be done better and, vitally, the sharing of this more widely.

Sarcoma UK has published our account in the article, Family insights from Dermot’s experience of sarcoma care. It covers many additional issues that were not in scope for the HSIB report, but are closely related to it – for example, patients’ experiences of services from early in the care pathway, which significantly impact their whole experience, and also the quality of care received. These cannot be neatly compartmentalised and definitely played a role in Dermot’s suffering.

The family has profound regrets that this fuller experience has not been fully investigated despite detailed work by the family and correspondence and discussions with some national experts. We really hope this  account starts useful and fruitful discussions with its  positive and constructive suggestions. 

Our main recommendations examine in a clear accessible way issues like the dynamic nature of the diagnostic and prognostic process; post-surgical symptom monitoring, and the nature of expert support that is needed to enable timely, appropriate interventions should the illness deteriorate; and, finally, what implications these types of aggressive unpredictable illnesses have for delivery of all post-surgical services, including palliative services. It is designed for service providers looking at cross-service communication, but also highlights issues patients may want to consider on their journey, particularly post-surgery. Since the publication of the report, we have had correspondence with an eminent palliative expert who has suggested that the role of hands-on-specialist palliative staff and sarcoma experts does require more clarity and attention, which is not highlighted in the HSIB report but alluded to in our experience.   

We want to contribute our suggestions and our insights to inform service reflection and change. The NHS needs defending and resourcing, but it also needs an open, patient-centred learning culture.

There is literature on ‘work as done’ and ‘work as imagined’, which is  used to analyse professional work in the safety learning field. Our contribution suggests more work has to be done on ‘work as experienced by patients and families’ and ‘work as requested and needed by patients and families ‘ and how these interrelate to the ‘service-centred’ perspective, which we believe overly governed the investigation process. Are patient-centred investigations so unacceptable to the system learning process? They may, after all, provide real challenge to system-controlled processes which led to harm. 

We are grateful for Sarcoma UK for facilitating the expression of an alternative viewpoint at the same time as the important HSIB report, and for HSIB for giving space for a family statement in the report.