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.

Investigating Patient Use and Experience of Online Appointment Booking in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Online appointment booking is a commonly used tool in several industries. There is limited evidence about the benefits and challenges of using online appointment booking in health care settings. Potential benefits include convenience and the ability to track appointments, although some groups of patients may find it harder to engage with online appointment booking. We sought to understand how patients in England used and experienced online appointment booking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients in relation to their use of online appointment booking in general practice and investigate patients' views regarding online appointment booking arrangements. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study set in English general practice comprising a retrospective analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and semistructured interviews with patients. Data used in the retrospective analysis comprised responses to the 2018 and 2019 GPPS analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Semistructured interviews with purposively sampled patients from 11 general practices in England explored experiences of and views on online appointment booking. Framework analysis was used to allow for comparison with the findings of the retrospective analysis. RESULTS: The retrospective analysis included 1,327,693 GPPS responders (2018-2019 combined). We conducted 43 interviews with patients with a variety of experiences and awareness of online appointment booking; of these 43 patients, 6 (14%) were from ethnic minority groups. In the retrospective analysis, more patients were aware that online appointment booking was available (581,224/1,288,341, 45.11%) than had experience using it (203,184/1,301,694, 15.61%). There were deprivation gradients for awareness and use and a substantial decline in both awareness and use in patients aged >75 years. For interview participants, age and life stage were factors influencing experiences and perceptions, working patients valued convenience, and older patients preferred to use the telephone. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware of (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.44) and more likely to use (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.63-1.67) online appointment booking. Interview participants with long-term conditions described online appointment booking as useful for routine nonurgent appointments. Patients in deprived areas were clustered in practices with low awareness and use of online appointment booking among GPPS respondents (OR for use 0.65, 95% CI 0.64-0.67). Other key findings included the influence of the availability of appointments online and differences in the registration process for accessing online booking. CONCLUSIONS: Whether and how patients engage with online appointment booking is influenced by the practice with which they are registered, whether they live with long-term conditions, and their deprivation status. These factors should be considered in designing and implementing online appointment booking and have implications for patient engagement with the wider range of online services offered in general practice.

Ethnic inequalities in routes to diagnosis of cancer: a population-based UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: UK Asian and Black ethnic groups have poorer outcomes for some cancers and are less likely to report a positive care experience than their White counterparts. This study investigated ethnic differences in the route to diagnosis (RTD) to identify areas in patients' cancer journeys where inequalities lie, and targeted intervention might have optimum impact. METHODS: We analysed data of 243,825 patients with 10 cancers (2006-2016) from the RTD project linked to primary care data. Crude and adjusted proportions of patients diagnosed via six routes (emergency, elective GP referral, two-week wait (2WW), screen-detected, hospital, and Other routes) were calculated by ethnicity. Adjusted odds ratios (including two-way interactions between cancer and age, sex, IMD, and ethnicity) determined cancer-specific differences in RTD by ethnicity. RESULTS: Across the 10 cancers studied, most patients were diagnosed via 2WW (36.4%), elective GP referral (23.2%), emergency (18.2%), hospital routes (10.3%), and screening (8.61%). Patients of Other ethnic group had the highest proportion of diagnosis via the emergency route, followed by White patients. Asian and Black group were more likely to be GP-referred, with the Black and Mixed groups also more likely to follow the 2WW route. However, there were notable cancer-specific differences in the RTD by ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, where inequalities exist, the adverse cancer outcomes among Asian and Black patients are unlikely to be arising solely from a poorer diagnostic process.

Morbidity and measures of the diagnostic process in primary care for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding how pre-existing conditions (morbidities) may influence the primary care investigation and management of individuals subsequently diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We identified morbidities using information from both primary and secondary care records among 11,716 patients included in the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) 2014. We examined variation in 5 measures of the diagnostic process (the primary care interval, diagnostic interval, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care-led investigations, and referral type) by both primary care- and hospital records-derived measures of morbidity. RESULTS: Morbidity prevalence recorded before cancer diagnosis was almost threefold greater using the primary care (75%) vs secondary care-derived measure (28%). After adjustment, there was limited variation in the primary care interval and the number of pre-referral consultations by either definition of morbidity. Patients with more severe morbidities were less likely to have had a primary care-led investigation before cancer diagnosis compared with those without any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.60-0.86] for Charlson score 3+ vs 0; joint P < 0.001). Patients with multiple primary care-recorded conditions or a Charlson score of 3+ were more likely to have diagnostic intervals exceeding 60 days (aOR: 1.26 [1.10-1.45] and 1.19 [>1.00-1.41], respectively), and more likely to receive an emergency referral (aOR: 1.60 [1.26-2.02] and 1.61 [1.26-2.06], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among cancer cases with up to 2 morbidities, there was no evidence of differences in diagnostic processes and intervals in primary care but higher morbidity burden was associated with longer time to diagnosis and higher likelihood of emergency referral.

Individuals with pre-existing long-term conditions (morbidities) may have a different pathways leading to their cancer diagnosis compared with those without such conditions but detailed evidence is limited. We aimed to investigate how morbidities were associated with a range of measures of the diagnostic process in primary care. We examined morbidity in 2 ways, using information from a primary care audit and hospital records. We found that three-quarters of patients were living with 1 or more conditions according to primary care-based information, while the prevalence was almost threefold lower when estimated using hospital records. There was little difference in the time from first primary care appointment to specialist referral and the number of appointments before specialist referral by morbidity, particularly when comparing patients with 1 or 2 conditions vs those without. However, patients with multiple conditions or more serious diseases experienced lower likelihood of investigation, greater likelihood of being sent to the hospital as an emergency, and longer time to diagnosis. We did not find evidence of substantial differences in primary care-based diagnostic processes by morbidity. However, once an initial referral has been made, multiple or more severe conditions appear to influence the time taken to reach a diagnosis.

Digital Facilitation to Support Patient Access to Web-Based Primary Care Services: Scoping Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation-referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services-may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. METHODS: Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients' trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019.

Predictive values for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease of 6 common abdominal symptoms among more than 1.9 million primary care patients in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic assessment of abdominal symptoms in primary care presents a challenge. Evidence is needed about the positive predictive values (PPVs) of abdominal symptoms for different cancers and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the United Kingdom (2000-2017), we estimated the PPVs for diagnosis of (i) cancer (overall and for different cancer sites); (ii) IBD; and (iii) either cancer or IBD in the year post-consultation with each of 6 abdominal symptoms: dysphagia (n = 86,193 patients), abdominal bloating/distension (n = 100,856), change in bowel habit (n = 106,715), rectal bleeding (n = 235,094), dyspepsia (n = 517,326), and abdominal pain (n = 890,490). The median age ranged from 54 (abdominal pain) to 63 years (dysphagia and change in bowel habit); the ratio of women/men ranged from 50%:50% (rectal bleeding) to 73%:27% (abdominal bloating/distension). Across all studied symptoms, the risk of diagnosis of cancer and the risk of diagnosis of IBD were of similar magnitude, particularly in women, and younger men. Estimated PPVs were greatest for change in bowel habit in men (4.64% cancer and 2.82% IBD) and for rectal bleeding in women (2.39% cancer and 2.57% IBD) and lowest for dyspepsia (for cancer: 1.41% men and 1.03% women; for IBD: 0.89% men and 1.00% women). Considering PPVs for specific cancers, change in bowel habit and rectal bleeding had the highest PPVs for colon and rectal cancer; dysphagia for esophageal cancer; and abdominal bloating/distension (in women) for ovarian cancer. The highest PPVs of abdominal pain (either sex) and abdominal bloating/distension (men only) were for non-abdominal cancer sites. For the composite outcome of diagnosis of either cancer or IBD, PPVs of rectal bleeding exceeded the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended specialist referral threshold of 3% in all age-sex strata, as did PPVs of abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, and dyspepsia, in those aged 60 years and over. Study limitations include reliance on accuracy and completeness of coding of symptoms and disease outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence from more than 1.9 million patients presenting in primary care, the findings provide estimated PPVs that could be used to guide specialist referral decisions, considering the PPVs of common abdominal symptoms for cancer alongside that for IBD and their composite outcome (cancer or IBD), taking into account the variable PPVs of different abdominal symptoms for different cancers sites. Jointly assessing the risk of cancer or IBD can better support decision-making and prompt diagnosis of both conditions, optimising specialist referrals or investigations, particularly in women.

Diagnostic performance of a faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: an evaluation in the South West of England.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer in English primary care in 2017, underpinned by little primary care evidence. METHODS: All healthcare providers in the South West of England (population 4 million) participated in this evaluation. 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer had a FIT from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018. A threshold of 10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive test. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighteen (15.9%) patients tested positive; 458 (74.1%) had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. Forty-three were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 tested negative; 324 (9.9%) had an urgent referral within three months. Eight were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Positive predictive value was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1-9.3%). Negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5-99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4-93.0%), specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8-86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86-0.96). A threshold of 37 µg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care; a higher threshold may be appropriate in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.

Primary care use by men with symptoms of possible prostate cancer: A multi-method study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate primary care use by men with recent onset of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to identify differences in presentation and investigation that may explain ethnic inequality in prostate cancer outcomes. METHODS: This is a multi-method study of men presenting LUTS to primary care. Two hundred seventy-four men completed a self-administered questionnaire, and 23 participated in face-to-face interviews. Regression analyses investigated ethnic differences in (a) the period between symptom onset and first primary care presentation (patient interval) and (b) the interval between first primary care presentation and investigation with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE). Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Half (144, 53%) reported a solitary first symptom, although multiple first symptoms were also common, particularly in Asian and Black men. There was no difference between ethnicities in patient interval or time from presentation to investigation. However, Asian men were offered less PSA testing (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.92; p = 0.03). Qualitative data revealed ethnic differences in general practitioners' offer of DRE and PSA testing and highlighted limitations in doctor-patient communication and safety netting. CONCLUSION: Our study showed only small differences in primary care experiences, insufficient to explain ethnic inequalities in prostate cancer outcomes.

Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis interventions such as symptom awareness campaigns increasingly form part of global cancer control strategies. However, these strategies will have little impact in improving cancer outcomes if the targeted symptoms represent advanced stage of disease. Therefore, we aimed to examine associations between common presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed population-level data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014 for patients aged 25 years and older with one of 12 types of solid tumours (bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, laryngeal, lung, melanoma, oral or oropharyngeal, ovarian, prostate, rectal, and renal cancer). We considered 20 common presenting symptoms and examined their associations with stage at diagnosis (TNM stage IV vs stage I-III) using logistic regression. For each symptom, we estimated these associations when reported as a single presenting symptom and when reported together with other symptoms. FINDINGS: We analysed data for 7997 patients. The proportion of patients diagnosed with stage IV cancer varied substantially by presenting symptom, from 1% (95% CI 1-3; eight of 584 patients) for abnormal mole to 80% (71-87; 84 of 105 patients) for neck lump. Three of the examined symptoms (neck lump, chest pain, and back pain) were consistently associated with increased odds of stage IV cancer, whether reported alone or with other symptoms, whereas the opposite was true for abnormal mole, breast lump, postmenopausal bleeding, and rectal bleeding. For 13 of the 20 symptoms (abnormal mole, breast lump, post-menopausal bleeding, rectal bleeding, lower urinary tract symptoms, haematuria, change in bowel habit, hoarseness, fatigue, abdominal pain, lower abdominal pain, weight loss, and the "any other symptom" category), more than 50% of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV; for 19 of the 20 studied symptoms (all except for neck lump), more than a third of patients were diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. INTERPRETATION: Despite specific presenting symptoms being more strongly associated with advanced stage at diagnosis than others, for most symptoms, large proportions of patients are diagnosed at stages other than stage IV. These findings provide support for early diagnosis interventions targeting common cancer symptoms, countering concerns that they might be simply expediting the detection of advanced stage disease. FUNDING: UK Department of Health's Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis; and Cancer Research UK.

The diagnostic performance of CA125 for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancer in primary care: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The serum biomarker cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is widely used as an investigation for possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women presenting to primary care. However, its diagnostic performance in this setting is unknown. We evaluated the performance of CA125 in primary care for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancers. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We studied women in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a CA125 test performed between 1 May 2011-31 December 2014. Ovarian and non-ovarian cancers diagnosed in the year following CA125 testing were identified from the cancer registry. Women were categorized by age: <50 years and ≥50 years. Conventional measures of test diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value, were calculated for the standard CA125 cut-off (≥35 U/ml). The probability of a woman having cancer at each CA125 level between 1-1,000 U/ml was estimated using logistic regression. Cancer probability was also estimated on the basis of CA125 level and age in years using logistic regression. We identified CA125 levels equating to a 3% estimated cancer probability: the "risk threshold" at which the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advocates urgent specialist cancer investigation. A total of 50,780 women underwent CA125 testing; 456 (0.9%) were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,321 (2.6%) with non-ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml, 3.4% aged <50 years and 15.2% aged ≥50 years had ovarian cancer. Of women with a CA125 level ≥35 U/ml who were aged ≥50 years and who did not have ovarian cancer, 20.4% were diagnosed with a non-ovarian cancer. A CA125 value of 53 U/ml equated to a 3% probability of ovarian cancer overall. This varied by age, with a value of 104 U/ml in 40-year-old women and 32 U/ml in 70-year-old women equating to a 3% probability. The main limitations of our study were that we were unable to determine why CA125 tests were performed and that our findings are based solely on UK primary care data, so caution is need in extrapolating them to other healthcare settings. CONCLUSIONS: CA125 is a useful test for ovarian cancer detection in primary care, particularly in women ≥50 years old. Clinicians should also consider non-ovarian cancers in women with high CA125 levels, especially if ovarian cancer has been excluded, in order to prevent diagnostic delay. Our results enable clinicians and patients to determine the estimated probability of ovarian cancer and all cancers at any CA125 level and age, which can be used to guide individual decisions on the need for further investigation or referral.

Assessing patients at risk of symptomatic-but-as-yet-undiagnosed cancer in primary care using information from patient records.

Evidence arising from primary care electronic health records can help to assess the risk of symptomatic-but-as-yet-undiagnosed cancer. Existing evidence and methodological innovations in this field of study hold further promise for improving the diagnostic process and achieving earlier diagnosis in cancer patients.

Evaluating diagnostic strategies for early detection of cancer: the CanTest framework.

BACKGROUND: Novel diagnostic triage and testing strategies to support early detection of cancer could improve clinical outcomes. Most apparently promising diagnostic tests ultimately fail because of inadequate performance in real-world, low prevalence populations such as primary care or general community populations. They should therefore be systematically evaluated before implementation to determine whether they lead to earlier detection, are cost-effective, and improve patient safety and quality of care, while minimising over-investigation and over-diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic scoping review of frameworks for the evaluation of tests and diagnostic approaches. RESULTS: We identified 16 frameworks: none addressed the entire continuum from test development to impact on diagnosis and patient outcomes in the intended population, nor the way in which tests may be used for triage purposes as part of a wider diagnostic strategy. Informed by these findings, we developed a new framework, the 'CanTest Framework', which proposes five iterative research phases forming a clear translational pathway from new test development to health system implementation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: This framework is suitable for testing in low prevalence populations, where tests are often applied for triage testing and incorporated into a wider diagnostic strategy. It has relevance for a wide range of stakeholders including patients, policymakers, purchasers, healthcare providers and industry.

Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors. RESULTS: The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

The influence of patient case mix on public health area statistics for cancer stage at diagnosis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: statistics comparing the stage at diagnosis of geographically defined populations of cancer patients are increasingly used in public reporting to monitor geographical inequalities but may be confounded by patient case mix. We explore the impact of case-mix adjustment on a publicly reported measure of early stage at diagnosis in England. METHODS: We analyzed data used for publicly reported statistics about the stage of patients diagnosed with 1 of 11 solid tumours in 2015 in England, including information on cancer site (bladder, breast, colon, rectum, kidney, lung, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian, prostate, endometrial), age, gender, income deprivation and population-based commissioning organization. We investigated how cancer site and other patient characteristics influence organizational comparisons and attainment of early-stage targets (≥60% of all cases diagnosed in TNM stages I-II). RESULTS: Adjusting for patient case mix reduced between-organization variance by more than 50%, resulting in appreciable discordance in organizational ranks (Kendall's tau = 0.53), with 18% (37/207) of organizations being reclassified as meeting/failing the early-stage target due to case mix. CONCLUSION: Summary statistics on stage of cancer diagnosis for geographical populations currently used as public health surveillance tools to monitor organizational inequalities need to account for patient sociodemographic characteristics and cancer site case mix.

Predictors of Postal or Online Response Mode and Associations With Patient Experience and Satisfaction in the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience surveys are important tools for improving the quality of cancer services, but the representativeness of responders is a concern. Increasingly, patient surveys that traditionally used postal questionnaires are incorporating an online response option. However, the characteristics and experience ratings of online responders are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine predictors of postal or online response mode, and associations with patient experience in the (English) Cancer Patient Experience Survey. METHODS: We analyzed data from 71,186 patients with cancer recently treated in National Health Service hospitals who responded to the Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2015. Using logistic regression, we explored patient characteristics associated with greater probability of online response and whether, after adjustment for patient characteristics, the online response was associated with a more or less critical evaluation of cancer care compared to the postal response. RESULTS: Of the 63,134 patients included in the analysis, 4635 (7.34%) responded online. In an adjusted analysis, male (women vs men: odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.54), younger (<55 vs 65-74 years: OR 3.49, 95% CI 3.21-3.80), least deprived (most vs least deprived quintile: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.51-0.64), and nonwhite (nonwhite vs white ethnic group: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.51) patients were more likely to respond online. Compared to postal responders, after adjustment for patient characteristics, online responders had a higher likelihood of reporting an overall satisfied experience of care (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.32). For 34 of 49 other items, online responders more frequently reported a less than positive experience of care (8 reached statistical significance), and the associations were positive for the remaining 15 of 49 items (2 reached statistical significance). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a national survey of patients with cancer, online and postal responders tend to differ in their characteristics and rating of satisfaction. Associations between online response and reported experience were generally small and mostly nonsignificant, but with a tendency toward less than positive ratings, although not consistently. Whether the observed associations between response mode and reported experience were causal needs to be examined using experimental survey designs.

The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives.

PURPOSE: To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. METHODS: Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

The nature and frequency of abdominal symptoms in cancer patients and their associations with time to help-seeking: evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis.

Background: Raising awareness of possible cancer symptoms is important for timely help-seeking; recent campaigns have focused on symptom groups (such as abdominal symptoms) rather than individual alarm symptoms associated with particular cancer sites. The evidence base supporting such initiatives is still emerging however; understanding the frequency and nature of presenting abdominal symptoms among cancer patients could inform the design and evaluation of public health awareness campaigns. Methods: We examined eight presenting abdominal symptoms (abdominal pain, change in bowel habit, bloating/distension, dyspepsia, rectal bleeding, dysphagia, reflux and nausea/vomiting) among 15 956 patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer in England. We investigated the cancer site case-mix and variation in the patient interval (symptom-onset-to-presentation) by abdominal symptom. Results: Almost a quarter (23%) of cancer patients presented with abdominal symptoms before being diagnosed with one of 27 common and rarer cancers. The patient interval varied substantially by abdominal symptom: median (IQR) intervals ranged from 7 (0-28) days for abdominal pain to 30 (4-73) days for dysphagia. This variation persisted after adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Abdominal symptoms are common at presentation among cancer patients, while time to presentation varies by symptom. The need for awareness campaigns may be greater for symptoms associated with longer intervals to help-seeking.

Symptoms and patient factors associated with longer time to diagnosis for colorectal cancer: results from a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to investigate symptoms, clinical factors and socio-demographic factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and time to diagnosis. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of participants referred for suspicion of CRC in two English regions. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses examined associations between symptoms and patient factors with total diagnostic interval (TDI), patient interval (PI), health system interval (HSI) and stage. RESULTS: A total of 2677 (22%) participants responded; after exclusions, 2507 remained. Participants were diagnosed with CRC (6.1%, 56% late stage), other cancers (2.0%) or no cancer (91.9%). Half the cohort had a solitary first symptom (1332, 53.1%); multiple first symptoms were common. In this referred population, rectal bleeding was the only initial symptom more frequent among cancer than non-cancer cases (34.2% vs 23.9%, P=0.004). There was no evidence of differences in TDI, PI or HSI for those with cancer vs non-cancer diagnoses (median TDI CRC 124 vs non-cancer 138 days, P=0.142). First symptoms associated with shorter TDIs were rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, 'feeling different' and fatigue/tiredness. Anxiety, depression and gastro-intestinal co-morbidities were associated with longer HSIs and TDIs. Symptom duration-dependent effects were found for rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors and patients respond less promptly to some symptoms of CRC than others. Healthcare professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of CRC in patients with relevant symptoms and mental health or gastro-intestinal comorbidities.

Measuring and Suppressing the Oxidative Damage to DNA During Cu(I)-Catalyzed Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition.

We have used the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to measure the extent of oxidative DNA damage under varying reaction conditions used for copper(I)-catalyzed click chemistry. We systematically studied how the damage depends on a number of key reaction parameters, including the amounts of copper, ascorbate, and ligand used, and found that the damage is significant under nearly all conditions tested, including those commonly used for bioconjugation. Furthermore, we discovered that the addition of dimethyl sulfoxide, a known radical scavenger, into the aqueous mixture dramatically suppresses DNA damage during the reaction. We also measured the efficiency of cross-linking two short synthetic oligonucleotides via click chemistry, and found that the reaction could proceed reasonably efficiently even with DMSO present. This approach for screening both DNA damage and reactivity under a range of reaction conditions will be valuable for improving the biocompatibility of click chemistry, and should help to extend this powerful synthetic tool for both in vitro and in vivo applications.

Do Differential Response Rates to Patient Surveys Between Organizations Lead to Unfair Performance Comparisons?: Evidence From the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient surveys typically have variable response rates between organizations, leading to concerns that such differences may affect the validity of performance comparisons. OBJECTIVE: To explore the size and likely sources of associations between hospital-level survey response rates and patient experience. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: Cross-sectional mail survey including 60 patient experience items sent to 101,771 cancer survivors recently treated by 158 English NHS hospitals. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, clinical diagnosis, hospital type, and region were available for respondents and nonrespondents. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 67% (range, 39% to 77% between hospitals). Hospitals with higher response rates had higher scores for all items (Spearman correlation range, 0.03-0.44), particularly questions regarding hospital-level administrative processes, for example, procedure cancellations or medical note availability.From multivariable analysis, associations between individual patient experience and hospital-level response rates were statistically significant (P<0.05) for 53/59 analyzed questions, decreasing to 37/59 after adjusting for case-mix, and 25/59 after further adjusting for hospital-level characteristics.Predicting responses of nonrespondents, and re-estimating hypothetical hospital scores assuming a 100% response rate, we found that currently low performing hospitals would have attained even lower scores. Overall nationwide attainment would have decreased slightly to that currently observed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher response rate hospitals have more positive experience scores, and this is only partly explained by patient case-mix. High response rates may be a marker of efficient hospital administration, and higher quality that should not, therefore, be adjusted away in public reporting. Although nonresponse may result in slightly overestimating overall national levels of performance, it does not appear to meaningfully bias comparisons of case-mix-adjusted hospital results.