When an NHS patient is diagnosed with cancer, with their permission, their information is added to the NCRAS, with certain data redacted. The purpose of the National Cancer Database (the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service or NCRAS) is to collect, analyse and provide data on all cancer patients in England. This allows researchers and healthcare professionals to understand cancer trends, treatment effectiveness and patient outcomes – thereby informing better cancer care planning and policy decisions across the country. Researchers use this to study cancer incidence, survival rates and effectiveness of different treatments.
For this to happen effectively and to achieve the aims of the NCRAS, patients’ medical records need to be accurate, not only in recording any recurrence (or not) of cancer, but also the effects of treatment on the patient, both at the time of treatment and in the follow-up years. It is widely documented that there are late effects from chemotherapy, some which simply continue as side effects once treatment has stopped, and others which occur months or even years after treatment has stopped, yet are directly related to that chemotherapy.
It is clear that not all NHS trusts give the same level of care, and even within one trust, depending on which department you are in, will depend on how you are looked after. There are a multitude of reasons which can explain some of these differences, including lack of funding and lack of staff. But that does not benefit the patient, and is not the point of this post. This is not an attack on the NHS, merely a comment from the experiences of many patients. It feels as if the greater pressure on the NHS often results in rushing through patients like a tick box exercise, instead of, especially in certain cases of more serious illnesses or conditions for example cancer, heart attacks, strokes etc, giving as much information as possible and involving the patient in their care rather than treating them as their illness and not treating them as a human being. This includes ensuring patients give informed consent rather than pushing the patient to “just sign” and refusing to answer questions because they don’t have time or they feel that their say-so is enough. It is unbelievable that in this day and age there are still oncologists who don’t understand why their patients might be stressed, anxious and concerned about what is happening and what might happen, and that when patients ask for information it would be useful to inform them.
It is also clear that very few patients are given information or support relating to side effects / after effects / late effects following on from the end of active treatment. In a lot of cases just because active treatment is finished, it does not mean that life returns to normal. In my case I was warned that pain issues might continue, but all the other side effects I queried, I was assured they would stop when chemo stopped. Some did, and a lot didn’t. I was concerned, and asked my medical team about them, and was completely blanked. They literally would not answer. Imagine how that feels. I ended up believing for the best part of a year, that I was doing something to cause these late effects, that it was my fault. No matter what I tried, nothing helped. Eventually I found a very supportive community on social media and found out that what was happening to me was completely normal, it happens to thousands of patients, and yes, oncologists very rarely talk about it.
My oncologist was not noting down any of the issues I raised, nor did she ever validate what I said. It makes for an uncomfortable appointment. This also raises the issue of the information passed to the NCRAS. It is obvious that in many cases oncologists are not passing on details regarding after effects / late effects. Without this information, where is the motivation to create kinder more gentle treatments? Chemo is utterly brutal. Many patients have no lasting effects after chemo, but many do, and in a lot of cases these effects are life-changing. It is often said that when the oncologist says “patient responded well to treatment” all that really means is that the patient did not die. And before I get angry responses, it is possible to be grateful to be alive and be angry and upset and the life changing damage done by chemo at the same time. These two are not mutually exclusive.
It is clear from speaking to other cancer patients that there is a great need for survivorship information and care following treatment. Not just across the board in the UK, but around the world. This would benefit everyone – the patient and the healthcare professionals. Not everyone will need to make use of it, but for some it will be a life saver.
