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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the association between socioeconomic deprivation and completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording in primary care, uptake of screening in people with incomplete risk factor recording and with actual CVD risk within the screened subgroup. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nine UK general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 7987 people aged 50-74 years with no CVD diagnosis. METHODS: CVD risk was estimated using the Framingham equation from data extracted from primary care electronic health records. Where there was insufficient information to calculate risk, patients were invited to attend a screening assessment. ANALYSIS: Proportion of patients for whom clinical data were sufficiently complete to enable CVD risk to be calculated; proportion of patients invited to screening who attended; proportion of patients who attended screening whose 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event was high (>20%). For each outcome, a set of logistic regression models were run. Crude and adjusted ORs were estimated for person-level deprivation, age, gender and smoking status. We included practice-level deprivation as a continuous variable and practice as a random effect to account for clustering. RESULTS: People who had lower Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores (less deprived) had significantly worse routine CVD risk factor recording (adjusted OR 0.97 (0.95 to 1.00) per IMD decile; p=0.042). Screening attendance was poorer in those with more deprivation (adjusted OR 0.89 (0.86 to 0.91) per IMD decile; p<0.001). Among those who attended screening, the most deprived were more likely to have CVD risk >20% (OR 1.09 (1.03 to 1.15) per IMD decile; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that those who had the most to gain from screening were least likely to attend, potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Future research should focus on tailoring the delivery of CVD screening to ensure engagement of socioeconomically deprived groups.

Pre-referral GP consultations in patients subsequently diagnosed with rarer cancers: a study of patient-reported data.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with cancer experience multiple pre-diagnostic consultations in primary care, leading to longer time intervals to specialist investigations and diagnosis. Patients with rarer cancers are thought to be at higher risk of such events, but concrete evidence of this is lacking. AIM: To examine the frequency and predictors of repeat consultations with GPs in patients with rarer cancers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patient-reported data on pre-referral consultations from three English national surveys of patients with cancer (2010, 2013, and 2014), pooled to maximise the sample size of rarer cancers. METHOD: The authors examined the frequency and crude and adjusted odds ratios for ≥3 (versus 1-2) pre-referral consultations by age, sex, ethnicity, level of deprivation, and cancer diagnosis (38 diagnosis groups, including 12 rarer cancers without prior relevant evidence). RESULTS: Among 7838 patients with 12 rarer cancers, crude proportions of patients with ≥3 pre-referral consultations ranged from >30.0% to 60.0% for patients with small intestine, bone sarcoma, liver, gallbladder, cancer of unknown primary, soft-tissue sarcoma, and ureteric cancer. The range was 15.0-30.0% for patients with oropharyngeal, anal, parotid, penile, and oral cancer. The overall proportion of responders with any cancer who had ≥3 consultations was 23.4%. Multivariable logistic regression indicated concordant patterns, with strong evidence for variation between rarer cancers (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with rarer cancers experience pre-referral consultations at frequencies suggestive of middle-to-high diagnostic difficulty. The findings can guide the development of new diagnostic interventions and 'safety-netting' approaches for symptomatic presentations encountered in patients with rarer cancers.

Does the availability of a South Asian language in practices improve reports of doctor-patient communication from South Asian patients? Cross sectional analysis of a national patient survey in English general practices.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities report poorer evaluations of primary health care compared to White British patients. Emerging evidence suggests that when a doctor and patient share ethnicity and/or language this is associated with more positive reports of patient experience. Whether this is true for adults in English general practices remains to be explored. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2010/2011 English General Practice Patient Survey, which were linked to data from the NHS Choices website to identify languages which were available at the practice. Our analysis was restricted to single-handed practices and included 190,582 patients across 1,068 practices. Including only single-handed practices enabled us to attribute, more accurately, reported patient experience to the languages that were listed as being available. We also carried out sensitivity analyses in multi-doctor practices. We created a composite score on a 0-100 scale from seven survey items assessing doctor-patient communication. Mixed-effect linear regression models were used to examine how differences in reported experience of doctor communication between patients of different self-reported ethnicities varied according to whether a South Asian language concordant with their ethnicity was available in their practice. Models were adjusted for patient characteristics and a random effect for practice. RESULTS: Availability of a concordant language had the largest effect on communication ratings for Bangladeshis and the least for Indian respondents (p < 0.01). Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian respondents on average reported poorer communication than White British respondents [-2.9 (95%CI -4.2, -1.6), -1.9 (95%CI -2.6, -1.2) and -1.9 (95%CI -2.5, -1.4), respectively]. However, in practices where a concordant language was offered, the experience reported by Pakistani patients was not substantially worse than that reported by White British patients (-0.2, 95%CI -1.5,+1.0), and in the case of Bangladeshi patients was potentially much better (+4.5, 95%CI -1.0,+10.1). This contrasts with a worse experience reported among Bangladeshi (-3.3, 95%CI -4.6, -2.0) and Pakistani (-2.7, 95%CI -3.6, -1.9) respondents when a concordant language was not offered. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in reported patient experience exist between ethnic groups. Our results suggest that patient experience among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis is improved where the practice offers a language that is concordant with the patient's ethnicity.

Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale. RESULTS: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care.

Sexual minorities in England have poorer health and worse health care experiences: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: The health and healthcare of sexual minorities have recently been identified as priorities for health research and policy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the health and healthcare experiences of sexual minorities with heterosexual people of the same gender, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. DESIGN: Multivariate analyses of observational data from the 2009/2010 English General Practice Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was mailed to 5.56 million randomly sampled adults registered with a National Health Service general practice (representing 99 % of England's adult population). In all, 2,169,718 people responded (39 % response rate), including 27,497 people who described themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. MAIN MEASURES: Two measures of health status (fair/poor overall self-rated health and self-reported presence of a longstanding psychological condition) and four measures of poor patient experiences (no trust or confidence in the doctor, poor/very poor doctor communication, poor/very poor nurse communication, fairly/very dissatisfied with care overall). KEY RESULTS: Sexual minorities were two to three times more likely to report having a longstanding psychological or emotional problem than heterosexual counterparts (age-adjusted for 5.2 % heterosexual, 10.9 % gay, 15.0 % bisexual for men; 6.0 % heterosexual, 12.3 % lesbian and 18.8 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Sexual minorities were also more likely to report fair/poor health (adjusted 19.6 % heterosexual, 21.8 % gay, 26.4 % bisexual for men; 20.5 % heterosexual, 24.9 % lesbian and 31.6 % bisexual for women; p < 0.001 for each). Adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and health status, sexual minorities were about one and one-half times more likely than heterosexual people to report unfavorable experiences with each of four aspects of primary care. Little of the overall disparity reflected concentration of sexual minorities in low-performing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual minorities suffer both poorer health and worse healthcare experiences. Efforts should be made to recognize the needs and improve the experiences of sexual minorities. Examining patient experience disparities by sexual orientation can inform such efforts.

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. DESIGN: Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. SETTING: Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS: 7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. RESULTS: After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

How do adults with physical disability experience primary care? A nationwide cross-sectional survey of access among patients in England.

OBJECTIVES: Almost a quarter of adults in England report a longstanding condition limiting physical activities. However, recent overseas evidence suggests poorer access to healthcare for disabled people. This study aimed to compare patient-reported access to English primary care for adults with and without physical disability. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2010/11 General Practice Patient Survey (response rate 35.9%) using logistic regression. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1,780,977 patients, from 8384 English general practices, who provided information on longstanding conditions limiting basic physical activity. 41,389 of these patients reported unmet need to see a doctor in the previous 6 months. OUTCOMES: Difficulty getting to the general practitioner (GP) surgery as a reason for unmet need to see a doctor in the preceding 6 months; difficulty getting into the surgery building. RESULTS: Estimated prevalence of physical disability was 17.2% (95% CI 17.0% to 17.3%). 17.9% (95% CI 17.4% to 18.4%) of patients with an unmet need to see a doctor were estimated to experience this due to difficulty getting to the surgery, and 2.2% (95% CI 2.2% to 2.3%) of all patients registered with a GP were estimated to experience difficulty getting into surgery buildings. Adjusting for gender, age, health status and employment, difficulty getting to the surgery explaining unmet need was more likely for patients with physical disability than for those without. Similarly, difficulty getting into surgery buildings was more likely among physically disabled patients. Both associations were stronger among patients aged 65-84 years. CONCLUSIONS: Adults in England with physical disability experience worse physical access into primary care buildings than those without. Physical disability is also associated with increased unmet healthcare need due to difficulty getting to GP premises, compared with the experience of adults without physical disability. Increasing age further exacerbates these problems. Access to primary care in England for patients with physical disability needs improving.

Gender inequalities in the promptness of diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer after symptomatic presentation: evidence from secondary analysis of an English primary care audit survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether women experience greater delays in the diagnosis of bladder and renal cancer when first presenting to a general practitioner with symptoms caused by those cancers and potential reasons for such gender inequalities. DESIGN: Prospective national audit survey of cancer diagnosis. SETTING: English primary care (2009-2010). PARTICIPANTS: 920 patients with bladder and 398 patients with renal cancer (252 (27%) and 165 (42%), respectively, were women). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with three or more pre-referral consultations; number of days from first presentation to referral; proportion of patients who presented with haematuria and proportion of patients investigated in primary care. RESULTS: Women required three or more prereferral consultations more often than men (27% (95% CI 21% to 33%) vs 11% (9% to 14%) for bladder (p<0.001); and 30% (22% to 39%) vs 18% (13% to 25%) for renal cancer (p=0.025)) and had a greater number of days from presentation to referral. In multivariable analysis (adjusting for age, haematuria status and use of primary care-led investigations), being a woman was independently associated with higher odds of three or more pre-referral consultations (OR=3.29 (2.06 to 5.25, p<0.001) for bladder cancer; and OR=1.90 (1.06 to 3.42, p=0.031) for renal cancer). Although presentation with haematuria was associated with more timely diagnosis of bladder cancer, gender inequalities did not vary by haematuria status for either cancer (p=0.18 for bladder and p=0.27 for renal). Each year in the UK, approximately 700 women with either bladder or renal cancer experience a delayed diagnosis because of their gender, of whom more than a quarter (197, or 28%) present with haematuria. CONCLUSIONS: There are notable gender inequalities in the timeliness of diagnosis of urological cancers. There is a need to both reinforce existing guidelines on haematuria investigation and develop new diagnostic decision aids and tests for patients who present without haematuria.