Attention on prevention cervical, breast and bowel screening programmes in Newcastle

Download (PDF 676KB)

Summary of report content

In the United Kingdom there are 11 NHS population screening programmes. This report focusses on the cervical, breast and bowel screening programmes. Healthwatch Newcastle used three techniques to gather views from people living in the areas listed above during autumn 2017. The techniques were focus groups, one to one interviews and surveys. Healthwatch Newcastle heard from 116 people about the cervical screening programme: 28 of these people said they had a very good (11) or good (17) experience. Where this was qualified, reasons given for good experiences were good staff (7), good information given (1) and straightforward procedure (1). Healthwatch Newcastle heard from 78 people about the breast screening programme. The most common views expressed when people talked about their experiences was that it was painful/uncomfortable (eight) and embarrassing. Healthwatch Newcastle heard from 86 people about the bowel screening programme (45 men, 14 women and 27 unknown gender). The most common views expressed when people talked about their experiences was that it was easy to complete (ten), but unpleasant (four) due to the nature of the test. Below are some recommendations based on the views Healthwatch Newcastle have gathered. The first set of recommendations are to be considered by all three screening programmes, followed by recommendations tailored to the cervical, breast and bowel screening programmes. 1. NHS England should work with Newcastle City Council’s Public Health Team and screening units to ensure that the appropriate bodies are resourced (funding, time, resources and expertise) to provide comprehensive and regular community outreach, particularly to seldom heard groups, men’s groups (for bowel screening) and schools. 2. NHS England should work with Newcastle City Council’s Public Health Team and screening units to explore how the appropriate bodies can be resourced (funding, time, resources and expertise) to train and support community leaders to deliver and sustain health promotion activities in their communities. 3. NHS England should consider incentivising general practices (perhaps via the Quality and Outcomes Framework) to follow up patients by phone who do not take part in screening, to provide information and encouragement. 4. NHS England should work with Clinical Commissioning Groups to explore how all patients receive invite letters in their preferred format (another language, large print, braille, etc.) 5. GP practices and screening units should ensure that robust processes are in place to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities when completing their screening test, as described in the duty to make reasonable adjustments in the Equality Act 2010. 6. If a GP or other health professional sees a patient who is due a screening test in the near future, this should be raised with the patient. 7. GP practices should work with their patient participation groups (PPGs) to consider how they could help practices improve their screening uptake. 8. Newcastle City Council’s Public Health Team to include targeted information about screening programmes in the refugee welcome pack.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Attention on prevention cervical, breast and bowel screening programmes in Newcastle
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Newcastle Upon Tyne
Date of publication 
Thursday, 1 March, 2018
Date evidence capture began 
Thursday, 1 March, 2018
Date evidence capture finished 
Thursday, 1 March, 2018
Type of report 
Report
Key themes 
Access
Booking appointments
Building and facilities
Communication between staff and patients
Information providing
Quality of appointment
Quality of care
Quality of staffing
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-7184

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
What type of organisation requested the work 
N/A
Primary research method used 
Focus group
Survey
User stories
How was the information collected? 
Survey
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
N/A

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
Diagnostic and/or screening service - single handed sessional providers

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
280
Age group 
Not known
Gender 
Not known
Ethnicity 
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Yes
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
No
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
N/A
Does the information include other people's views? 
No
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Mixed

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
No
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Yes
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
No
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
 
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
 
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.