Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy that involves monitoring patients with symptoms possibly indicative of serious illness, such as cancer, until they are resolved. Optimising safety-netting practice in primary care has been proposed to improve quality of care and clinical outcomes. Introducing guidelines is a potential means to achieve this. AIM: To seek the insight of frontline GPs regarding proposed safety-netting guidelines for suspected cancer in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study with 25 GPs practising in Oxfordshire, UK. METHOD: Transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically by a multidisciplinary research team using a mind-mapping approach. RESULTS: GPs were supportive of initiatives to optimise safety netting. Guidelines on establishing who has responsibility for follow-up, keeping patient details up to date, and ensuring test result review is conducted by someone with knowledge of cancer guidelines were already being followed. Sharing diagnostic uncertainty and ensuring an up-to-date understanding of guidelines were only partially implemented. Neither informing patients of all (including negative) test results nor ensuring recurrent unexplained symptoms are always flagged and referred were considered feasible. The lack of detail, for example, the expected duration of symptoms, caused some concern. Overall, doubts were expressed about the feasibility of the guidelines given the time, recruitment, and resource challenges faced in UK primary care. CONCLUSION: GPs expressed general support for safety netting, yet were unconvinced that key elements of the guidelines were feasible, especially in the context of pressures on general practice staffing and time.

General practitioner referrals to one-stop clinics for symptoms that could be indicative of cancer: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One-stop clinics provide comprehensive diagnostic testing in one outpatient appointment. They could benefit patients with conditions, such as cancer, whose outcomes are improved by early diagnosis, and bring efficiency savings for health systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use and outcomes of one-stop clinics for symptoms where cancer is a possible diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies reporting use and outcomes of one-stop clinics in primary care patients. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing one-stop clinics for adults referred after presenting to primary care with any symptom that could be indicative of cancer. Study selection was carried out independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were identified, most were conducted in the UK and observational in design. Few included a comparison arm. A pooled comparison of the cancer conversion rate of one-stop and multi-stop clinics was only possible for breast symptoms, and we found no significant difference. One-stop clinics were associated with significant reductions in the interval from referral to testing (15 versus 75 days) and more patients diagnosed on the same day (79% versus 25%) compared to multi-stop pathways. The majority of patients and GPs found one-stop clinics to be acceptable. CONCLUSION: This review found one-stop clinics were associated with reduced time from referral to testing, increased same day diagnoses, and were acceptable to patients and GPs. Our conclusions are limited by high levels of heterogeneity, scarcity of comparator groups, and the overwhelmingly observational nature of included studies.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. AIM: To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. RESULTS: The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. CONCLUSION: GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, OUTCOMES: Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking. RESULTS: We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22 mm Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11 mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15 mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12 months (range 2-36 months). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015019821.