The effects of the first UK lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic on primary-care-recorded cancer and type-2 diabetes mellitus records: A population-based quasi-experimental time series study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted consulting behaviour, healthcare delivery and cancer diagnostic services. This study quantifies the cancer incidence coded in UK general practice electronic health records and deviations from historical trends after the March 2020 national lockdown. For comparison, we study the coded incidence of type-2 diabetes mellitus, which is diagnosed almost entirely within primary care. METHODS: Poisson interrupted time series models investigated the coded incidence of diagnoses in adults aged ≥ 18 years in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink before (01/03/2017-29/02/2020) and after (01/03/2020-28/02/2022) the first lockdown. Datasets were stratified by age, sex, and general practice per 28-day aggregation period. Models captured incidence changes associated with lockdown, both immediately and over time based on historical trends. RESULTS: We studied 189,457 incident cancer and 191,915 incident diabetes records in 1480 general practices over 52,374,197 person-years at risk. During 01/03/2020-28/02/2022, there were fewer incident records of cancer (n = 22,199, 10.49 %, 10.44-10.53 %) and diabetes (n = 15,709, 7.57 %, 7.53-7.61 %) than expected. Within cancers, impacts ranged from no effect (e.g. unknown primary, pancreas, and ovary), to small effects for lung (n = 773, 3.11 %, 3.09-3.13 % fewer records) and female breast (n = 2686, 6.77 %, 6.73-6.81 %), to the greatest effect for bladder (n = 2874, 31.15 %, 31.00-31.31 %). Diabetes and cancer records recovered maximally to 86 % (95 %CI 80.3-92.7 %) and 74 % (95 %CI 70.3-78.6 %) in July 2021 and May 2021, respectively, of their expected values, declining again until the study end. CONCLUSION: The "missing" cancer and diabetes diagnoses in primary care may comprise delayed or missed diagnoses, reduced incidence associated with excess deaths from COVID-19, and potentially increased non-coded recording of diagnoses. Future validation studies must quantify the concordance between primary care and National Cancer Registration Data and Hospital Episode Statistics over the pandemic era.

Supporting patients with a mental health diagnosis to use online services in primary care. A qualitative interview study.

Objective: The increase in reliance on online services for general practice has the potential to increase inequalities within some populations. Patients with a mental health condition are one such group. Digital facilitation is defined as a range of processes, procedures, and people, which seek to support NHS patients in using online services. This study aimed to examine the views and experiences of digital facilitation in primary care amongst patients living with a mental health condition. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients living with a mental health condition, recruited from general practices across England participating in the Di-Facto study. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Results: Interviews were conducted with ten participants with a mental health condition, recruited from five general practices. Three themes were identified: (1) familiarity with online services; (2) experiences of those using online services; (3) the need for digital facilitation. The need for digital facilitation was identified in the registration for online services, and in trusting online services. Conclusions: Online services offer convenience for patients, but registration for the use of such services remains a potential area of difficulty. Participants had difficulties with registering for online services and had concerns about trust in using them. Support offered by general practices in using online services needs to be varied and adaptable to meet the needs of individual patients.

Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Missed and delayed cancer diagnoses are common, harmful, and often preventable. Automated measures of quality of cancer diagnosis are lacking but could identify gaps and guide interventions. We developed and implemented a digital quality measure (dQM) of cancer emergency presentation (EP) using electronic health record databases of two health systems and characterized the measure's association with missed opportunities for diagnosis (MODs) and mortality. METHODS: On the basis of literature and expert input, we defined EP as a new cancer diagnosis within 30 days after emergency department or inpatient visit. We identified EPs for lung cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Geisinger from 2016 to 2020. We validated measure accuracy and identified preceding MODs through standardized chart review of 100 records per cancer per health system. Using VA's longitudinal encounter and mortality data, we applied logistic regression to assess EP's association with 1-year mortality, adjusting for cancer stage and demographics. RESULTS: Among 38,565 and 2,914 patients with lung cancer and 14,674 and 1,649 patients with CRCs at VA and Geisinger, respectively, our dQM identified EPs in 20.9% and 9.4% of lung cancers, and 22.4% and 7.5% of CRCs. Chart reviews revealed high positive predictive values for EPs across sites and cancer types (72%-90%), and a substantial percent represented MODs (48.8%-84.9%). EP was associated with significantly higher odds of 1-year mortality for lung cancer and CRC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78 and 1.83, respectively, 95% CI, 1.63 to 1.86 and 1.61 to 2.07). CONCLUSION: A dQM for cancer EP was strongly associated with both mortality and MODs. The findings suggest a promising automated approach to measuring quality of cancer diagnosis in US health systems.

Informing the development of a scoring system for National Health Service Clinical Impact Awards; a Delphi process and simulated scoring exercise.

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK's Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0-10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0-10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements.

What helps patients access web-based services in primary care? Free-text analysis of patient responses to the Di-Facto questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. METHODS: The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021-2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. RESULTS: Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and 'what works for me', a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access.

Guideline concordance for timely chest imaging after new presentations of dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend urgent chest X-ray for newly presenting dyspnoea or haemoptysis but there is little evidence about their implementation. METHODS: We analysed linked primary care and hospital imaging data for patients aged 30+ years newly presenting with dyspnoea or haemoptysis in primary care during April 2012 to March 2017. We examined guideline-concordant management, defined as General Practitioner-ordered chest X-ray/CT carried out within 2 weeks of symptomatic presentation, and variation by sociodemographic characteristic and relevant medical history using logistic regression. Additionally, among patients diagnosed with cancer we described time to diagnosis, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis by guideline-concordant status. RESULTS: In total, 22 560/162 161 (13.9%) patients with dyspnoea and 4022/8120 (49.5%) patients with haemoptysis received guideline-concordant imaging within the recommended 2-week period. Patients with recent chest imaging pre-presentation were much less likely to receive imaging (adjusted OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.14-0.18 for dyspnoea, and adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.11 for haemoptysis). History of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma was also associated with lower odds of guideline concordance (dyspnoea: OR 0.234, 95% CI 0.225-0.242 and haemoptysis: 0.88, 0.79-0.97). Guideline-concordant imaging was lower among dyspnoea presenters with prior heart failure; current or ex-smokers; and those in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.The likelihood of lung cancer diagnosis within 12 months was greater among the guideline-concordant imaging group (dyspnoea: 1.1% vs 0.6%; haemoptysis: 3.5% vs 2.7%). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of receiving urgent imaging concords with the risk of subsequent cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, large proportions of dyspnoea and haemoptysis presenters do not receive prompt chest imaging despite being eligible, indicating opportunities for earlier lung cancer diagnosis.

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions. METHODS: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group. RESULTS: There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.

UK research data resources based on primary care electronic health records: review and summary for potential users.

BACKGROUND: The range and scope of electronic health record (EHR) data assets in the UK has recently increased, which has been mainly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarising and comparing the large primary care resources will help researchers to choose the data resources most suited to their needs. AIM: To describe the current landscape of UK EHR databases and considerations of access and use of these resources relevant to researchers. DESIGN & SETTING: Narrative review of EHR databases in the UK. METHOD: Information was collected from the Health Data Research Innovation Gateway, publicly available websites and other published data, and from key informants. The eligibility criteria were population-based open-access databases sampling EHRs across the whole population of one or more countries in the UK. Published database characteristics were extracted and summarised, and these were corroborated with resource providers. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Nine large national primary care EHR data resources were identified and summarised. These resources are enhanced by linkage to other administrative data to a varying extent. Resources are mainly intended to support observational research, although some can support experimental studies. There is considerable overlap of populations covered. While all resources are accessible to bona fide researchers, access mechanisms, costs, timescales, and other considerations vary across databases. CONCLUSION: Researchers are currently able to access primary care EHR data from several sources. Choice of data resource is likely to be driven by project needs and access considerations. The landscape of data resources based on primary care EHRs in the UK continues to evolve.

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence.

OBJECTIVES: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

Are There Ethnic Differences in Recorded Features among Patients Subsequently Diagnosed with Cancer? An English Longitudinal Data-Linked Study.

We investigated ethnic differences in the presenting features recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis. METHODS: English population-based cancer-registry-linked primary care data were analysed. We identified the coded features of six cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, and myeloma) in the year pre-diagnosis. Logistic regression models investigated ethnic differences in first-incident cancer features, adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 130,944 patients, 92% were White. In total, 188,487 incident features were recorded in the year pre-diagnosis, with 48% (89,531) as sole features. Compared with White patients, Asian and Black patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer were more likely than White patients to have multiple features; the opposite was seen for the Black and Other ethnic groups with lung or prostate cancer. The proportion with relevant recorded features was broadly similar by ethnicity, with notable cancer-specific exceptions. Asian and Black patients were more likely to have low-risk features (e.g., cough, upper abdominal pain) recorded. Non-White patients were less likely to have alarm features. CONCLUSION: The degree to which these differences reflect disease, patient or healthcare factors is unclear. Further research examining the predictive value of cancer features in ethnic minority groups and their association with cancer outcomes is needed.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. AIM: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. METHOD: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. RESULTS: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). CONCLUSION: In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Clinician-led secondary triage in England's urgent care delivery: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-led secondary triage, following primary triage by the NHS 111 phone line, is central to England's urgent care system. However, little is known about how secondary triage influences the urgency attributed to patients' needs. AIM: To describe patterns of secondary triage outcomes and call-related factors (such as call length and time of call) associated with upgrading/downgrading of primary triage outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of secondary triage call records from four urgent care providers in England using the same digital triage system to support clinicians' decision making. METHOD: Statistical analyses (mixed-effects regression) of approximately 200 000 secondary triage call records were undertaken. RESULTS: Following secondary triage, 12% of calls were upgraded (including 2% becoming classified as emergencies) from the primary triage urgency. The highest odds of upgrade related to chest pain (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.34 to 3.07) and breathlessness (OR 1.62, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.85; reference: abdominal pain) presentations. However, 74% of calls were downgraded; notably, 92% (n = 33 394) of calls classified at primary triage as needing clinical attention within 1 h were downgraded. Secondary triage outcomes were associated with operational factors (day/time of call), and most substantially with the clinician conducting triage. CONCLUSION: Non-clinician primary triage has significant limitations, highlighting the importance of secondary triage in the English urgent care system. It may miss key symptoms that are subsequently triaged as requiring immediate care, while also being too risk averse for most calls leading to downgrading of urgency. There is unexplained inconsistency between clinicians, despite all using the same digital triage system. Further research is needed to improve the consistency and safety of urgent care triage.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow. METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue". CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

Examining methodology to identify patterns of consulting in primary care for different groups of patients before a diagnosis of cancer: An exemplar applied to oesophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current methods for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis are not robust because dates of key defining milestones, for example first presentation, are uncertain. This is exacerbated when patients have other conditions (multimorbidity), particularly those that share symptoms with cancer. Methods independent of this uncertainty are needed for accurate estimates of the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, and to understand how multimorbidity impacts the diagnostic process. METHODS: Participants were diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer between 2010 and 2019. Controls were matched on year of birth, sex, general practice and multimorbidity burden calculated using the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score. Primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) was used to explore population-level consultation rates for up to two years before diagnosis across different multimorbidity burdens. Five approaches were compared on the timing of the consultation frequency increase, the inflection point for different multimorbidity burdens, different aggregated time-periods and sample sizes. RESULTS: We included 15,410 participants, of which 13,328 (86.5 %) had a measurable multimorbidity burden. Our new maximum likelihood estimation method found evidence that the inflection point in consultation frequency varied with multimorbidity burden, from 154 days (95 %CI 131.8-176.2) before diagnosis for patients with no multimorbidity, to 126 days (108.5-143.5) for patients with the greatest multimorbidity burden. Inflection points identified using alternative methods were closer to diagnosis for up to three burden groups. Sample size reduction and changing the aggregation period resulted in inflection points closer to diagnosis, with the smallest change for the maximum likelihood method. DISCUSSION: Existing methods to identify changes in consultation rates can introduce substantial bias which depends on sample size and aggregation period. The direct maximum likelihood method was less prone to this bias than other methods and offers a robust, population-level alternative for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

Primary care blood tests before cancer diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in patients with cancer but how often they are used is unclear. AIM: To explore use of common blood tests before cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39 752 patients with cancer diagnosed in 2018. METHOD: Common blood test use (full blood count [FBC], urea and electrolytes [U&E], and liver function tests [LFTs]), variation by patient and symptom group, and associations with the primary care interval and the diagnostic interval were assessed. RESULTS: At least one common blood test was used in 41% (n = 16 427/39 752) of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Among tested patients, (n = 16 427), FBC was used in 95% (n = 15 540), U&E in 89% (n = 14 555), and LFTs in 76% (n = 12 414). Blood testing was less common in females (adjusted odds ratio versus males: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 0.98) and Black and minority ethnic patients (0.89, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.97 versus White), and more common in older patients (1.12, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.18 for ≥70 years versus 50-69 years). Test use varied greatly by cancer site (melanoma 2% [ n = 55/2297]; leukaemia 84% [ n = 552/661]). Fewer patients presenting with alarm symptoms alone were tested (24% [ n = 3341/13 778]) than those with non-alarm symptoms alone (50% [ n = 8223/16 487]). Median primary care interval and diagnostic interval were longer in tested than non-tested patients (primary care interval: 10 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 49 versus 32 days, respectively, P<0.001 for both), including among tested patients with alarm symptoms (primary care interval: 4 versus 0 days; diagnostic interval: 41 versus 22 days). CONCLUSION: Two-fifths of patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer have primary care blood tests as part of their diagnostic process. Given variable test use, research is needed on the clinical context in which blood tests are ordered.

Steroid prescribing in primary care increases prior to Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis: A UK nationwide case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Steroid use is associated with increased risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, allergic symptoms commonly treated with steroids are also presenting features of HL in some patients, thereby introducing protopathic bias in estimates of aetiological associations. It is therefore important to examine steroid prescribing patterns pre-diagnosis to understand timing of associations and when healthcare use increases before cancer diagnosis to inform future epidemiological study design. METHODS: We analysed steroid prescribing in 1232 HL patients and 7392 matched controls using primary care electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), 1987-2016). Using Poisson regression, we calculated monthly steroid prescribing rates for the 24-months preceding HL diagnosis, identifying the inflection point when they start to increase from baseline in cases, comparing rates with synchronous controls, and stratifying by route-of-administration and allergic disease status. RESULTS: 46 % of HL patients had a steroid prescription in the 24-months preceding diagnosis compared to 26 % of controls (OR 2.55, 95 %CI 2.25-2.89, p < 0.001). Odds of underlying HL were greatest in patients receiving multiple steroid prescriptions, oral steroids and in patients with a new allergic disease diagnosis. Among HL patients, steroid prescribing rates increased progressively from 7-months pre-diagnosis, doubling from 52 to 111 prescriptions/1000 patients/month. CONCLUSION: Steroid prescribing increases during periods leading up to HL diagnosis, suggesting steroid-treated symptoms may be early presenting features of HL. A diagnostic window of appreciable length exists for potential earlier HL diagnosis in some patients; this 7-month 'lag-period' pre-diagnosis should be excluded in studies examining aetiological associations between steroids and HL.