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.

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.

Quantifying the impact of pre-existing conditions on the stage of oesophagogastric cancer at diagnosis: a primary care cohort study using electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing conditions interfere with cancer diagnosis by offering diagnostic alternatives, competing for clinical attention or through patient surveillance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between oesophagogastric cancer stage and pre-existing conditions. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data, with English cancer registry linkage. Participants aged ≥40 years had consulted primary care in the year before their incident diagnosis of oesophagogastric cancer in 01/01/2010-31/12/2015. CPRD records pre-diagnosis were searched for codes denoting clinical features of oesophagogastric cancer and for pre-existing conditions, including those providing plausible diagnostic alternatives for those features. Logistic regression analysed associations between stage and multimorbidity (≥2 conditions; reference category: no multimorbidity) and having 'diagnostic alternative(s)', controlling for age, sex, deprivation and cancer site. RESULTS: Of 2444 participants provided, 695 (28%) were excluded for missing stage, leaving 1749 for analysis (1265/1749, 72.3% had advanced-stage disease). Multimorbidity was associated with stage [odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.85, P = 0.002], with moderate evidence of an interaction term with sex (1.76, 1.08-2.86, P = 0.024). There was no association between alternative explanations and stage (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, P = 0.278). CONCLUSIONS: In men, multimorbidity is associated with a reduced chance of advanced-stage oesophagogastric cancer, to levels seen collectively for women.

Diagnosing cancer is complicated by existing medical conditions. Diagnosis may be delayed if conditions explain cancer symptoms, or dominate appointments. Diagnosis may be quicker if conditions increase doctor­patient contact. We studied the association between existing illness and stage (early or advanced) of diagnosis with cancer of the stomach or gullet. We studied the primary-care records of patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed in 01/01/2010­31/12/2015, and got stage from English cancer registry data. We searched the primary-care records for cancer symptoms (e.g. difficulty swallowing), and for 27 conditions that were common or explained cancer symptoms (e.g. difficulty swallowing following a stroke). We analysed cancer stage, looking at age, sex, multimorbidity (two or more conditions) and explanations for symptoms. We studied 1749 patients, of whom 1265 (72.3%) had advanced-stage cancer. The chance of advanced stage was similar in women with (71%, 95% CI 66­75%) or without (69%, 62­76%) multimorbidity. It was lower for men with (70%, 67­74%) than without (79%, 75­83%) multimorbidity. Stage of cancer was not affected by having explanations for cancer symptoms. In summary, for men, multimorbidity is associated with a reduced chance of advanced-stage cancer of the stomach or gullet to levels seen collectively for women.

Effect of pre-existing conditions on bladder cancer stage at diagnosis: a cohort study using electronic primary care records in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing concurrent medical conditions (multimorbidity) complicate cancer diagnosis when they provide plausible diagnostic alternatives for cancer symptoms. AIM: To investigate associations in bladder cancer between: first, pre-existing condition count and advanced-stage diagnosis; and, second, comorbidities that share symptoms with bladder cancer and advanced-stage diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: This observational UK cohort study was set in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with Public Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service linkage. METHOD: Included participants were aged ≥40 years with an incident diagnosis of bladder cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015, and primary care records of attendance for haematuria, dysuria, or abdominal mass in the year before diagnosis. Stage at diagnosis (stage 1 or 2 versus stage 3 or 4) was the outcome variable. Putative explanatory variables using logistic regression were examined, including patient-level count of pre-existing conditions and 'alternative-explanations', indicating whether pre-existing condition(s) were plausible diagnostic alternatives for the index cancer symptom. RESULTS: In total, 1468 patients (76.4% male) were studied, of which 399 (35.6%) males and 217 (62.5%) females had alternative explanations for their index cancer symptom, the most common being urinary tract infection with haematuria. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 2.18; P = 0.001). Alternative explanations were strongly associated with advanced-stage diagnosis in both sexes (aOR 1.69; 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.39; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Alternative explanations were associated with advanced-stage diagnosis of bladder cancer. Females were more likely than males to be diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, but the effect was not driven entirely by alternative explanations.

Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care.

BACKGROUND: A 2014 national audit used the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to compare service users' experience of out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) services, yet there is no published evidence on the validity of these GPPS items. OBJECTIVES: Establish the construct and concurrent validity of GPPS items evaluating service users' experience of GP out-of-hours care. METHODS: Cross-sectional postal survey of service users (n=1396) of six English out-of-hours providers. Participants reported on four GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care (three items modified following cognitive interviews with service users), and 14 evaluative items from the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ). Construct validity was assessed through correlations between any reliable (Cochran's α>0.7) scales, as suggested by a principal component analysis of the modified GPPS items, with the 'entry access' (four items) and 'consultation satisfaction' (10 items) OPQ subscales. Concurrent validity was determined by investigating whether each modified GPPS item was associated with thematically related items from the OPQ using linear regressions. RESULTS: The modified GPPS item-set formed a single scale (α=0.77), which summarised the two-component structure of the OPQ moderately well; explaining 39.7% of variation in the 'entry access' scores (r=0.63) and 44.0% of variation in the 'consultation satisfaction' scores (r=0.66), demonstrating acceptable construct validity. Concurrent validity was verified as each modified GPPS item was highly associated with a distinct set of related items from the OPQ. CONCLUSIONS: Minor modifications are required for the English GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care to improve comprehension by service users. A modified question set was demonstrated to comprise a valid measure of service users' overall satisfaction with out-of-hours care received. This demonstrates the potential for the use of as few as four items in benchmarking providers and assisting services in identifying, implementing and assessing quality improvement initiatives.

Impact of multi-morbidity on quality of healthcare and its implications for health policy, research and clinical practice. A scoping review.

The simultaneous presence of multiple conditions in one patient (multi-morbidity) is a key challenge facing healthcare systems globally. It potentially threatens the coordination, continuity and safety of care. In this paper, we report the results of a scoping review examining the impact of multi-morbidity on the quality of healthcare. We used its results as a basis for a discussion of the challenges that research in this area is currently facing. In addition, we discuss its implications for health policy and clinical practice. The review identified 37 studies focussing on multi-morbidity but using conceptually different approaches. Studies focusing on 'comorbidity' (i.e. the 'index disease' approach) suggested that quality may be enhanced in the presence of synergistic conditions, and impaired by antagonistic or neutral conditions. Studies on 'multi-morbidity' (i.e. multiplicity of problems) and 'morbidity burden' (i.e. the total severity of conditions) suggested that increasing number of conditions and severity may be associated with better quality of healthcare when measured by process or intermediate outcome indicators, but with worse quality when patient-centred measures are used. However, issues related to the conceptualization and measurement of multi-morbidity (inconsistent across studies) and of healthcare quality (restricted to evaluations for each separate condition without incorporating considerations about multi-morbidity itself and its implications for management) compromised the generalizability of these observations. Until these issues are addressed and robust evidence becomes available, clinicians should apply minimally invasive and patient-centred medicine when delivering care for clinically complex patients. Health systems should focus on enhancing primary care centred coordination and continuity of care.