Determining the feasibility of calculating pancreatic cancer risk scores for people with new-onset diabetes in primary care (DEFEND PRIME): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis. Early diagnosis may improve survival by enabling curative treatment. Statistical and machine learning diagnostic prediction models using risk factors such as patient demographics and blood tests are being developed for clinical use to improve early diagnosis. One example is the Enriching New-onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model, which employs patients' age, blood glucose and weight changes to provide pancreatic cancer risk scores. These values are routinely collected in primary care in the UK. Primary care's central role in cancer diagnosis makes it an ideal setting to implement ENDPAC but it has yet to be used in clinical settings. This study aims to determine the feasibility of applying ENDPAC to data held by UK primary care practices. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a multicentre observational study with a cohort design, determining the feasibility of applying ENDPAC in UK primary care. We will develop software to search, extract and process anonymised data from 20 primary care providers' electronic patient record management systems on participants aged 50+ years, with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test result of ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) and no previous abnormal HbA1c results. Software to calculate ENDPAC scores will be developed, and descriptive statistics used to summarise the cohort's demographics and assess data quality. Findings will inform the development of a future UK clinical trial to test ENDPAC's effectiveness for the early detection of pancreatic cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project has been reviewed by the University of Surrey University Ethics Committee and received a favourable ethical opinion (FHMS 22-23151 EGA). Study findings will be presented at scientific meetings and published in international peer-reviewed journals. Participating primary care practices, clinical leads and policy makers will be provided with summaries of the findings.

What impact do self-referral and direct access pathways for patients have on health inequalities?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in self-referral and direct access as alternatives pathways to care to improve patient access to specialist services. The impact of these pathways on health inequalities is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the impact of self-referral and direct access pathways on inequalities in health care use. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature were systematically searched for articles from January 2000 to February 2023, reporting on self-referral and direct access pathways to care. Title and abstracts were screened against eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated the impact on health inequalities. Data were extracted from eligible studies after full text review and a quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 2948 articles. Nineteen records were included, covering seven countries and six healthcare services. The impact of self-referral and direct access on inequalities was mixed, suggesting that the relationship is dependent on patient and system factors. Typically self-referral pathways and direct access pathways tend to widen health inequalities. White, younger, educated women from less deprived backgrounds are more likely to self-refer, exacerbating existing health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Self-referral pathways risk widening health inequalities. Further research is required to understand the context-dependent mechanisms by which this can occur, explore ways to mitigate this and even narrow health inequalities, as well as understand the impact on the wider healthcare system.

Single-handed versus multiple-handed General practices: A cross-sectional study of quality outcomes in England.

OBJECTIVES: As general practice increasingly moves towards large group practices, there is debate about the relative benefits, safety and sustainability of different care delivery models. This study investigates the performance of single-handed practices compared to practices with multiple doctors in England, UK. METHODS: Practices in England with more than 1000 patients were included. Workforce data and a quality control process classified practices as single-handed or multiple-handed. Outcomes were (i) GP patient survey scores measuring access, continuity, confidence in health professional and overall satisfaction; (ii) reported diabetes and hypertension outcomes; and (iii) emergency department presentation rates and cancer detection (percentage of cancers diagnosed by a 2-week wait). Generalised linear models, controlling for patient and practice characteristics, compared outcomes in single and multiple-handed practices and assessed the effect of GP age in single-handed practices. RESULTS: Single-handed practices were more commonly found in areas of high deprivation (41% compared to 20% of multiple-handed practices). Single-handed practices had higher patient-reported access, continuity and overall satisfaction but slightly lower diabetes management and cancer detection rates. Emergency department presentations were higher when controlling for patient characteristics in single-handed practices but not when also controlling for practice rurality and size. Increased deprivation was associated with lower performance in seven out of eight outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found single-handed practices to be associated with high patient satisfaction while performing slightly less well on selected clinical outcomes. Further research is required to better understand the association between practice size, including increasing multidisciplinary working, on patient experience and outcomes.