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.

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.

Assessing Ethnic Inequalities in Diagnostic Interval of Common Cancers: A Population-Based UK Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated ethnic differences in diagnostic interval (DI)-the period between initial primary care presentation and diagnosis. METHODS: We analysed the primary care-linked data of patients who reported features of seven cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, myeloma, and ovarian) one year before diagnosis. Accelerated failure time (AFT) models investigated the association between DI and ethnicity, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and morbidity. RESULTS: Of 126,627 eligible participants, 92.1% were White, 1.99% Black, 1.71% Asian, 1.83% Mixed, and 2.36% were of Other ethnic backgrounds. Considering all cancer sites combined, the median (interquartile range) DI was 55 (20-175) days, longest in lung [127, (42-265) days], and shortest in breast cancer [13 (13, 8-18) days]. DI for the Black and Asian groups was 10% (AFT ratio, 95%CI 1.10, 1.05-1.14) and 16% (1.16, 1.10-1.22), respectively, longer than for the White group. Site-specific analyses revealed evidence of longer DI in Asian and Black patients with prostate, colorectal, and oesophagogastric cancer, plus Black patients with breast cancer and myeloma, and the Mixed group with lung cancer compared with White patients. DI was shorter for the Other group with lung, prostate, myeloma, and oesophagogastric cancer than the White group. CONCLUSION: We found limited and inconsistent evidence of ethnic differences in DI among patients who reported cancer features in primary care before diagnosis. Our findings suggest that inequalities in diagnostic intervals, where present, are unlikely to be the sole explanation for ethnic variations in cancer outcomes.

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.

Inflammatory marker testing in primary care in the year before Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis: a UK population-based case-control study in patients aged ≤50 years.

BACKGROUND: Proinflammatory conditions are associated with increased risk of Hodgkin lymphoma, although the neoplastic process per se often induces an inflammatory response. AIM: To examine pre-diagnostic inflammatory marker test use to identify changes that may define a 'diagnostic window' for potential earlier diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a matched case-control study in UK primary care using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data (2002-2016). METHOD: Primary care inflammatory marker test use and related findings were analysed in 839 Hodgkin lymphoma patients and 5035 controls in the year pre-diagnosis. Poisson regression models were used to calculate monthly testing rates to examine changes over time in test use. Longitudinal trends in test results and the presence/absence of 'red-flag' symptoms were examined. RESULTS: In patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, 70.8% (594/839) had an inflammatory marker test in the year pre-diagnosis versus 16.2% (816/5035) of controls (odds ratio 13.7, 95% CI = 11.4 to 16.5, P<0.001). The rate of inflammatory marker testing and mean levels of certain inflammatory marker results increased progressively during the year pre-diagnosis in Hodgkin lymphoma patients while remaining stable in controls. Among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma with a pre-diagnostic test, two-thirds (69.5%, 413/594) had an abnormal result and, among these, 42.6% (176/413) had no other 'red-flag' presenting symptom/sign. CONCLUSION: Increases in inflammatory marker requests and abnormal results occur in many patients with Hodgkin lymphoma several months pre-diagnosis, suggesting this period should be excluded in aetiological studies examining inflammation in Hodgkin lymphoma development, and that a diagnostic time window of appreciable length exists in many patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, many of whom have no other red-flag features.

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.

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.

Sociodemographic inequalities in patients' experiences of primary care: an analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey in England between 2011 and 2017.

OBJECTIVE: Younger people, minority ethnic groups, sexual minorities and people of lower socioeconomic status report poorer experiences of primary care. In light of NHS ambitions to reduce unwarranted variations in care, we aimed to investigate whether inequalities in patient experience of primary care changed between 2011 and 2017, using data from the General Practice Patient Survey in England. METHODS: We considered inequalities in relation to age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, sexual orientation and geographical region across five dimensions of patient experience: overall experience, doctor communication, nurse communication, access and continuity of care. We used linear regression to explore whether the magnitude of inequalities changed between 2011 and 2017, using mixed models to assess changes within practices and models without accounting for practice to assess national trends. RESULTS: We included 5,241,408 responses over 11 survey waves from 2011-2017. There was evidence that inequalities changed over time (p < 0.05 for 27/30 models), but the direction and magnitude of changes varied. Changes in gaps in experience ranged from a 1.6 percentage point increase for experience of access among sexual minorities, to a 5.6 percentage point decrease for continuity, where experience worsened for older ages. Inequalities in access in relation to socio-economic status remained reasonably stable for individuals attending the same GP practice; nationally inequalities in access increased 2.1 percentage points (p < 0.0001) between respondents living in more/less deprived areas, suggesting access is declining fastest in practices in more deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: There have been few substantial changes in inequalities in patient experience of primary care between 2011 and 2017.

Awareness and use of online appointment booking in general practice: analysis of GP Patient Survey data.

BACKGROUND: General practices are required to provide online booking to patients in line with policy to digitise access. However, uptake of online booking by patients is currently low and there is little evidence about awareness and use by different patient groups. AIM: To examine variability in awareness and use of online appointment booking in general practice. METHOD: Secondary analysis of two questions from the GP Practice Survey data (2018) asking about awareness and use of online booking of appointments. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations with age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, the presence of a long-term condition, long-term sickness and being deaf. RESULTS: In total, 43.3% (277 278/647 064) of responders reported being aware of being able to book appointments online, while only 15% (93 671/641 073) reported doing so. There was evidence of variation by all factors considered, with strong deprivation gradients in both awareness and use (for example, most versus least deprived quintile OR for use: 0.63 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65). There was a reduction in awareness and use in patients >75 years of age. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware and more likely to use online booking. CONCLUSION: While over 40% of patients know that they can book appointment online, the number that actually do so is far lower. With the constant push for online services within the NHS and the roll out of the NHS app, practices should be aware that not all patient groups will book appointments online and that other routes of access need to be maintained to avoid widening health inequalities.

Workforce predictive risk modelling: development of a model to identify general practices at risk of a supply-demand imbalance.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model identifying general practices at risk of workforce supply-demand imbalance. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of routine data on general practice workforce, patient experience and registered populations (2012 to 2016), combined with a census of general practitioners' (GPs') career intentions (2016). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A hybrid approach was used to develop a model to predict workforce supply-demand imbalance based on practice factors using historical data (2012-2016) on all general practices in England (with over 1000 registered patients n=6398). The model was applied to current data (2016) to explore future risk for practices in South West England (n=368). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was a practice being in a state of workforce supply-demand imbalance operationally defined as being in the lowest third nationally of access scores according to the General Practice Patient Survey and the highest third nationally according to list size per full-time equivalent GP (weighted to the demographic distribution of registered patients and adjusted for deprivation). RESULTS: Based on historical data, the predictive model had fair to good discriminatory ability to predict which practices faced supply-demand imbalance (area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.755). Predictions using current data suggested that, on average, practices at highest risk of future supply-demand imbalance are currently characterised by having larger patient lists, employing more nurses, serving more deprived and younger populations, and having considerably worse patient experience ratings when compared with other practices. Incorporating findings from a survey of GP's career intentions made little difference to predictions of future supply-demand risk status when compared with expected future workforce projections based only on routinely available data on GPs' gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to make reasonable predictions of an individual general practice's future risk of undersupply of GP workforce with respect to its patient population. However, the predictions are inherently limited by the data available.

Identifying and quantifying variation between healthcare organisations and geographical regions: using mixed-effects models.

When the degree of variation between healthcare organisations or geographical regions is quantified, there is often a failure to account for the role of chance, which can lead to an overestimation of the true variation. Mixed-effects models account for the role of chance and estimate the true/underlying variation between organisations or regions. In this paper, we explore how a random intercept model can be applied to rate or proportion indicators and how to interpret the estimated variance parameter.

Impact of the Southwark and Lambeth Integrated Care Older People's Programme on hospital utilisation and costs: controlled time series and cost-consequence analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on hospital utilisation and costs of a multi-faceted primary care intervention for older people identified as being at risk of avoidable hospitalisation. DESIGN: Observational study: controlled time series analysis and estimation of costs and cost consequences of the Programme. General practitioner (GP)'s practice level data were analysed from 2009 to 2016 (intervention operated from 2012 to 2016). Mixed-effect Poisson regression models of hospital utilisation included comparisons with control practices and background trends in addition to within-practice comparisons. Cost estimation used standard tariff values. SETTING: 94 practices in Southwark and Lambeth and 263 control practices from other parts of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital utilisation: emergency department attendance, emergency admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory sensitive conditions, outpatient attendance, elective admission and length of stay. RESULTS: By the fourth year of the Programme, there were reductions in accident and emergency (A&E) attendance (rate ratio 0.944, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.976), outpatient attendances (rate ratio 0.938, 95% CI 0.902 to 0.975) and elective admissions (rate ratio 0.921, 95% CI 0.908 to 0.935) but there was no evidence of reduced emergency admissions. The costs of the Programme were £149 per resident aged 65 and above but savings in hospital costs were only £86 per resident aged 65 and above, equivalent to a net increase in health service expenditure of £64 per resident though the Programme was nearly cost neutral if set-up costs were excluded. Holistic assessments carried out by GPs and consequent Integrated Care Management (ICM) plans were associated with increases in elective activity and costs; £126 increase in outpatient attendance and £936 in elective admission costs per holistic assessment carried out, and £576 increase in outpatient and £5858 in elective admission costs per patient receiving ICM. CONCLUSIONS: The Older People's Programme was not cost saving. Some aspects of the Programme were associated with increased costs of elective care, possibly through the identification of unmet need.

Are inequalities in cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation narrowing, widening or remaining unchanged? Longitudinal analysis of English population-based data 2006-2013.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of cancer through emergency presentation is associated with poorer prognosis. While reductions in emergency presentations have been described, whether known sociodemographic inequalities are changing is uncertain. METHODS: We analysed 'Routes to Diagnosis' data on patients aged ≥25 years diagnosed in England during 2006-2013 with any of 33 common or rarer cancers. Using binary logistic regression we determined time-trends in diagnosis through emergency presentation by age, deprivation and cancer site. RESULTS: Overall adjusted proportions of emergency presentations decreased during the study period (2006: 23%, 2013: 20%). Substantial baseline (2006) inequalities in emergency presentation risk by age and deprivation remained largely unchanged. There was evidence (p<0.05) of reductions in the risk of emergency presentations for most (28/33) cancer sites, without apparent associations between the size of reduction and baseline risk (p=0.26). If there had been modest reductions in age inequalities (ie, patients in each age group acquiring the same percentage of emergency presentations as the adjacent group with lower risk), in the last study year we could have expected around 11 000 fewer diagnoses through emergency presentation (ie, a nationwide percentage of 16% rather than the observed 20%). For similarly modest reductions in deprivation inequalities, we could have expected around 3000 fewer (ie, 19%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of cancer diagnoses through emergency presentation is decreasing but age and deprivation inequalities prevail, indicating untapped opportunities for further improvements by reducing these inequalities. The observed reductions in proportions across nearly all cancer sites are likely to reflect both earlier help-seeking and improvements in diagnostic healthcare pathways, across both easier-to-suspect and harder-to-suspect cancers.

Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England.

BACKGROUND: The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investigated the extent to which this indicator reflects underlying organisational differences rather than differences in stage completeness and chance variation. METHODS: We used population-based data on patients diagnosed with one of ten cancer sites in 2013 (bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, prostate, renal, NHL, and melanoma). We assessed the degree of bias in CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) indicators introduced by missing-is-late and complete-case specifications compared with an imputed 'gold standard'. We estimated the Spearman-Brown (organisation-level) reliability of the complete-case specification. We assessed probable misclassification rates against current pay-for-performance targets. RESULTS: Under the missing-is-late approach, bias in estimated CCG percentage of tumours diagnosed at an early stage ranged from -2 to -30 percentage points, while bias under the complete-case approach ranged from -2 to +7 percentage points. Using an annual reporting period, indicators based on the least biased complete-case approach would have poor reliability, misclassifying 27/209 (13%) CCGs against a pay-for-performance target in current use; only half (53%) of CCGs apparently exceeding the target would be correctly classified in terms of their underlying performance. CONCLUSIONS: Current public reporting schemes for cancer stage at diagnosis in England should use a complete-case specification (i.e. the number of staged cases forming the denominator) and be based on three-year reporting periods. Early stage indicators for the studied geographies should not be used in pay-for-performance schemes.

Evaluation of telephone first approach to demand management in English general practice: observational study.

Objective To evaluate a "telephone first" approach, in which all patients wanting to see a general practitioner (GP) are asked to speak to a GP on the phone before being given an appointment for a face to face consultation.Design Time series and cross sectional analysis of routine healthcare data, data from national surveys, and primary survey data.Participants 147 general practices adopting the telephone first approach compared with a 10% random sample of other practices in England.Intervention Management support for workload planning and introduction of the telephone first approach provided by two commercial companies.Main outcome measures Number of consultations, total time consulting (59 telephone first practices, no controls). Patient experience (GP Patient Survey, telephone first practices plus controls). Use and costs of secondary care (hospital episode statistics, telephone first practices plus controls). The main analysis was intention to treat, with sensitivity analyses restricted to practices thought to be closely following the companies' protocols.Results After the introduction of the telephone first approach, face to face consultations decreased considerably (adjusted change within practices -38%, 95% confidence interval -45% to -29%; P<0.001). An average practice experienced a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (1204%, 633% to 2290%; P<0.001). The average duration of both telephone and face to face consultations decreased, but there was an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, albeit with large uncertainty on this estimate (95% confidence interval -1% to 17%; P=0.088). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload and others a large increase. Compared with other English practices in the national GP Patient Survey, in practices using the telephone first approach there was a large (20.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 18.2 to 21.9; P<0.001) improvement in length of time to be seen. In contrast, other scores on the GP Patient Survey were slightly more negative. Introduction of the telephone first approach was followed by a small (2.0%) increase in hospital admissions (95% confidence interval 1% to 3%; P=0.006), no initial change in emergency department attendance, but a small (2% per year) decrease in the subsequent rate of rise of emergency department attendance (1% to 3%; P=0.005). There was a small net increase in secondary care costs.Conclusions The telephone first approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with over the phone. The approach does not suit all patients or practices and is not a panacea for meeting demand. There was no evidence to support claims that the approach would, on average, save costs or reduce use of secondary care.

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence.

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

Adjusted indices of multiple deprivation to enable comparisons within and between constituent countries of the UK including an illustration using mortality rates.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants can have a major impact on health and as a consequence substantial inequalities are seen between and within countries. The study of inequalities between countries relies on having accurate and consistent measures of deprivation across the country borders. However, in the UK most socioeconomic deprivation measures are not comparable between countries. We give a method of adjusting the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for use across the UK, describe the deprivation of each UK country, and show the problems introduced by naïvely using country-specific deprivation measures in a UK-wide analysis of mortality rates. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 42 148 geographic areas covering the population of the UK. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted IMD scores based on the income and employment domains of country-specific IMD scores, adjusting for the contribution of other domains. The mortality rate among people aged under 75 years standardised to the UK age structure was compared between country-specific and UK-adjusted IMD quintiles. RESULTS: Of the constituent countries of the UK, Northern Ireland was the most deprived with 37% of the population living in areas in the most deprived fifth of the UK, followed by Wales with 22% of the population living in the most deprived fifth of the UK. England and Scotland had similar levels of deprivation. Deprivation-specific mortality rates were similar in England and Wales. Northern Ireland had lower mortality rates than England for each deprivation group, with similar differences for each group. Scotland had higher mortality rates than England for each deprivation group, with larger differences for more deprived groups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of between-country and within-country inequalities by socioeconomic position should use consistent measures; failing to use consistent measures may give misleading results. The published adjusted IMD scores we describe allow consistent analysis across the UK.

Understanding negative feedback from South Asian patients: an experimental vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, minority ethnic groups report poorer care in patient surveys. This could be because they get worse care or because they respond differently to such surveys. We conducted an experiment to determine whether South Asian people in England rate simulated GP consultations the same or differently from White British people. If these groups rate consultations similarly when viewing identical simulated consultations, it would be more likely that the lower scores reported by minority ethnic groups in real surveys reflect real differences in quality of care. DESIGN: Experimental vignette study. Trained fieldworkers completed computer-assisted personal interviews during which participants rated 3 video recordings of simulated GP-patient consultations, using 5 communication items from the English GP Patient Survey. Consultations were shown in a random order, selected from a pool of 16. SETTING: Geographically confined areas of ∼130 households (output areas) in England, selected using proportional systematic sampling. PARTICIPANTS: 564 White British and 564 Pakistani adults recruited using an in-home face-to-face approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean differences in communication score (on a scale of 0-100) between White British and Pakistani participants, estimated from linear regression. RESULTS: Pakistani participants, on average, scored consultations 9.8 points higher than White British participants (95% CI 8.0 to 11.7, p<0.001) when viewing the same consultations. When adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, self-rated health and video, the difference increased to 11.0 points (95% CI 8.5 to 13.6, p<0.001). The largest differences were seen when participants were older (>55) and where communication was scripted to be poor. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in ratings were found between groups, with Pakistani respondents giving higher scores than White British respondents to videos showing the same care. Our findings suggest that the lower scores reported by Pakistani patients in national surveys represent genuinely worse experiences of communication compared to the White British majority.

Clinical excellence: evidence on the assessment of senior doctors' applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards. Analysis of complete national data set.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the rational deployment of assessor resource in the evaluation of applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA). SETTING: ACCEA are responsible for a scheme to financially reward senior doctors in England and Wales who are assessed to be working over and above the standard expected of their role. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised applications of consultants and senior academic GPs for awards were considered by members of 14 regional subcommittees and 2 national assessing committees during the 2014-2015 round of applications. DESIGN: It involved secondary analysis of complete anonymised national data set. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed scores for each of 1916 applications for a clinical excellence award across 4 levels of award. Scores were provided by members of 16 subcommittees. We assessed the reliability of assessments and described the variance in the assessment of scores. RESULTS: Members of regional subcommittees assessed 1529 new applications and 387 renewal applications. Average scores increased with the level of application being made. On average, applications were assessed by 9.5 assessors. The highest contributions to the variance in individual assessors' assessments of applications were attributable to assessors or to residual variance. The applicant accounted for around a quarter of the variance in scores for new bronze applications, with this proportion decreasing for higher award levels. Reliability in excess of 0.7 can be attained where 4 assessors score bronze applications, with twice as many assessors being required for higher levels of application. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment processes pertaining in the competitive allocation of public funds need to be credible and efficient. The present arrangements for assessing and scoring applications are defensible, depending on the level of reliability judged to be required in the assessment process. Some relatively minor reconfiguration in approaches to scoring might usefully be considered in future rounds of assessment.