The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000 state that currently less than 5% of adult patients with solid tumours are entered into clinical trials. They recommend that increasing the number of adult cancer patients entering clinical trials must become a high priority. Health-care providers need to prepare themselves for this proposed increase in trial participants by assessing the current status of care and implementing changes within the current infrastructure to provide optimal holistic care. Cancer can change a patient's life either for better or for worse. At one extreme, having cancer leads to enhanced appreciation of life and closer bonds with others. However, at the other extreme, cancer combined with its treatment is viewed as an event that evokes distress and emotional anguish taxing the individual's ability to cope. In the last 25 years, owing to the advent of clinical trials, progress has been made in cancer treatment. Clinical trials may be hailed as the saviour to many therapeutic dilemmas. Treatments are now available which can offer patients hope of cure. Nevertheless, many participants may fear, for the purpose of research, that they may be assigned to less than optimal therapy or that their care will be carried out in a sterile scientific atmosphere devoid of humane and personal consideration. These and other reasons may cause unacceptable personal distress that overrides the potential therapeutic gain. Cancer diagnosis coupled with the ramifications of clinical trial involvement can have significant psychological implications. They may trigger the onset of a mood disorder or exacerbate a present symptom. This article will identify mood disorders in the cancer population, focus on the participants' needs in the clinical trial arena and investigate the influence trial participation has on psychological status.

The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology 2000 state that currently less than 5% of adult patients with solid tumours are entered into clinical trials. They recommend that increasing the number of adult cancer patients entering clinical trials must become a high priority. Health-care providers need to prepare themselves for this proposed increase in trial participants by assessing the current status of care and implementing changes within the current infrastructure to provide optimal holistic care. Cancer can change a patient's life either for better or for worse. At one extreme, having cancer leads to enhanced appreciation of life and closer bonds with others. However, at the other extreme, cancer combined with its treatment is viewed as an event that evokes distress and emotional anguish taxing the individual's ability to cope. In the last 25 years, owing to the advent of clinical trials, progress has been made in cancer treatment. Clinical trials may be hailed as the saviour to many therapeutic dilemmas. Treatments are now available which can offer patients hope of cure. Nevertheless, many participants may fear, for the purpose of research, that they may be assigned to less than optimal therapy or that their care will be carried out in a sterile scientific atmosphere devoid of humane and personal consideration. These and other reasons may cause unacceptable personal distress that overrides the potential therapeutic gain. Cancer diagnosis coupled with the ramifications of clinical trial involvement can have significant psychological implications. They may trigger the onset of a mood disorder or exacerbate a present symptom. This article will identify mood disorders in the cancer population, focus on the participants' needs in the clinical trial arena and investigate the influence trial participation has on psychological status.

Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services aim to rapidly initiate specialist packages of care for those people newly experiencing symptoms. The intention of such rapid engagement is to mitigate the negative effects of a prolonged duration of untreated psychosis. Aiming to achieve a ‘parity of esteem’ between mental and physical health, a new target was introduced by the National Health Service (NHS) England, where 50% of new referrals were expected to receive a concordant package of care within 2 weeks from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. A baseline assessment in late 2014 found that just 21% of all referrals received and accepted met this target within the EIP Team for the North-East London NHS Foundation Trust. This project sought to improve the team’s performance, seeking input from all team members and using an iterative process with the primary aim of meeting the target ahead of its roll-out. It was determined that the relatively high number of inappropriate referrals (34% at baseline) is a key causative agent in delaying staff from processing eligible cases in a timely fashion. These are defined as referrals which do not meet basic eligibility criteria such as no previous treatment for psychosis. Interventions were therefore designed targeting three domains of improving staff awareness of the new target, improving efficiency by changing the case allocation process and improving the referral pathway for external sources. The impact of these changes was re-evaluated over two cycles beyond baseline. By the final cycle, 62% of new referrals were seen within 2 weeks, while inappropriate referrals declined to just 3%. The multi-interventional nature of this project limits its generalisability and further work should be carried out to identify those changes that were most impactful. Nevertheless, focused targeting of the referral pathway may prove to be of benefit to other EIP services struggling with lengthy wait times.

No abstract