Bowel cancer screening for people with learning disabilities: establishing principles for good practice
Susan Read Professor of learning disability nursing, Keele University School of Nursing and Midwifery, Clinical Education Centre, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England
Emee Estacio Lecturer, School of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire, England
Patsy Corcoran Co-ordinator, REACH, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England
Deanna Latham Consultant nurse, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England
Lee Findler Lead nurse, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England
Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer in England, and with one in 20 people developing the condition, it is the second highest cause of cancer deaths. If diagnosed early, treatment can be more effective and bowel cancer screening programmes can reduce these mortality figures, yet for people with learning disabilities, the uptake of screening is significantly lower than the rest of the population.
Aims To describe the process of co-production when working with a group of people with learning disabilities to explore why they may be reluctant to access bowel cancer screening.
Methods A consultation meeting was held with one of the authors, six people with learning disabilities, an advocate and two specialist nurses. A feedback session was organised and a report using clear information was written in conjunction with the participants.
Findings Participants discussed what gets in the way of attending for bowel screening and what might help to increase uptake, including awareness, support and clear information.
Conclusion Working in co-production proved mutually beneficial as local clinicians also learned how to communicate more effectively with people who have learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Practice.
19, 8, 33-39.
doi: 10.7748/ldp.2016.e1766
Correspondence
s.c.read@keele.ac.uk
Peer review
This article has been subject to double-blind review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interest
None declared
Received: 31 May 2016
Accepted: 19 August 2016
Want to read more?
Already have access? Log in
or
3-month trial offer for £5.25/month
Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
- Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
- RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
- NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
- Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
- A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe
Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days.
Buy now
Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more