Verbal fluency as a quick and simple tool to help in deciding when to refer patients with a possible brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Patients with brain tumours often present with non-specific symptoms. Correctly identifying who to prioritise for urgent brain imaging is challenging. Brain tumours are amongst the commonest cancers diagnosed as an emergency presentation. A verbal fluency task (VFT) is a rapid triage test affected by disorders of executive function, language and processing speed. We tested whether a VFT could support identification of patients with a brain tumour. METHODS: This proof-of-concept study examined whether a VFT can help differentiate patients with a brain tumour from those with similar symptoms (i.e. headache) without a brain tumour. Two patient populations were recruited, (a) patients with known brain tumour, and (b) patients with headache referred for Direct-Access Computed-Tomography (DACT) from primary care with a suspicion of a brain tumour. Semantic and phonemic verbal fluency data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: 180 brain tumour patients and 90 DACT patients were recruited. Semantic verbal fluency score was significantly worse for patients with a brain tumour than those without (P < 0.001), whether comparing patients with headache, or patients without headache. Phonemic fluency showed a similar but weaker difference. Raw and incidence-weighted positive and negative predictive values were calculated. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated the potential role of adding semantic VFT score performance into clinical decision making to support triage of patients for urgent brain imaging. A relatively small improvement in the true positive rate in patients referred for DACT has the potential to increase the timeliness and efficiency of diagnosis and improve patient outcomes.

COVID-19 and cancer screening in Scotland: A national and coordinated approach to minimising harm.

Screening is an important component of cancer control internationally. In Scotland, the National Health Service Scotland provides screening programmes for cervical, bowel and breast cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the suspension of these programmes in March 2020. We describe the integrated approach to managing the impact of the pandemic on cancer screening programmes in Scotland throughout 2020. We outline the policy context and decision-making process leading to suspension, and the criteria and framework informing the subsequent, staggered, restart in subsequent months. The decision to suspend screening services in order to protect screening invitees and staff, and manage NHS capacity, was made after review of numbers of screening participants likely to be affected, and the potential number of delayed cancer diagnoses. Restart principles and a detailed route map plan were developed for each programme, seeking to ensure broad consistency of approach across the programmes and nationally. Early data indicates bowel, breast and cervical screening participation has increased since restart. Primary care has had to adapt to new infection prevention control measures for delivery of cervical screening. Cancer charities provided cancer intelligence and policy briefs to national bodies and Scottish Government, as well as supporting the public, patients and screening invitees through information and awareness campaigns. Emerging from the pandemic, there is recognition of the need and the opportunity to transform and renew both cancer and screening services in Scotland, and in particular to address long-standing workforce capacity problems through innovation and investment, and to continue to prioritise addressing health inequalities.

Short-term outcomes of a COVID-adapted triage pathway for colorectal cancer detection.

AIM: The dramatic curtailment of endoscopy and CT colonography capacity during the coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted timely diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We describe a rapidly implemented COVID-adapted diagnostic pathway to mitigate risk and maximize cancer diagnosis in patients referred with symptoms of suspected CRC. METHOD: The 'COVID-adapted pathway' integrated multiple quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (qFIT) to enrich for significant colorectal disease with judicious use of CT with oral contrast to detect gross pathology. Patients reporting 'high-risk' symptoms were triaged to qFIT+CT and the remainder underwent an initial qFIT to inform subsequent investigation. Demographic and clinical data were prospectively collected. Outcomes comprised cancer detection frequency. RESULTS: Overall, 422 patients (median age 64 years, 220 women) were triaged using this pathway. Most (84.6%) were referred as 'urgent suspicious of cancer'. Of the 422 patients, 202 (47.9%) were triaged to CT and qFIT, 211 (50.0%) to qFIT only, eight (1.9%) to outpatient clinic and one to colonoscopy. Fifteen (3.6%) declined investigation and seven (1.7%) were deemed unfit. We detected 13 cancers (3.1%), similar to the mean cancer detection rate from all referrals in 2017-2019 (3.3%). Compared with the period 1 April-31 May in 2017-2019, we observed a 43% reduction in all primary care referrals (1071 referrals expected reducing to 609). CONCLUSION: This COVID-adapted pathway mitigated the adverse effects on diagnostic capacity and detected cancer at the expected rate within those referred. However, the overall reduction in the number of referrals was substantial. The described risk-mitigating measures could be a useful adjunct whilst standard diagnostic services remain constrained due to the ongoing pandemic.

Improving primary palliative care in Scotland: lessons from a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, all GP practices across Scotland have been supported to take a systematic approach to end-of-life care, by helping them to identify more patients for palliative care through a Palliative Care Directed Enhanced Service (DES). We aimed to understand the impact of this initiative. METHODS: Routine quantitative data from the 2012/13, and 2013/14 DES were collected from regional health boards, analysed and discussed. Qualitative data were collected from a sample of 2012/13 DES returns and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Data were received from 512 practices in nine Scottish Health boards for the 2012-13 DES and 638 practices in 11 Health boards for 2013-14. A sample of 90 of the returns for 2012-13 was selected for qualitative analysis. In 2012-13, 72 % of patients who died of cancer were listed on the palliative care register (PCR) before death while 27 % of patients who died as a result of non-malignant conditions were listed on the PCR. In 2013-14, cancer identification remained the same but identification of people dying with other long-term conditions had improved to 32.5 %. We identified several key issues needed to improve palliative care in the community. The need for training to identify patients with palliative care needs (particularly non-cancer); communication skills training; improvements in sharing information across the NHS; under-resource of and lack of coordination with district nurses; improvements in information technology; and tools for working with enlarged palliative care registers. CONCLUSIONS: The DES helped more patients with long-term conditions (LTC) receive generalist palliative care. Approaching generalist palliative care as anticipatory care could facilitate communication between GPs and patients/families and remove some barriers to early identification of palliative care needs. Improvement of information technology and use of identification tools like the SPICT™ may improve professionals' communication with each other and help may make identification and management of patients easier.

Impact of primary care triage using the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 on tertiary head and neck services in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 period.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the impact of primary care utilisation of a symptom-based head and neck cancer risk calculator (Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2) in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 period on the number of primary care referrals and cancer diagnoses. METHODS: The number of referrals from April 2019 to August 2019 and from April 2020 to July 2020 (pre-calculator) was compared with the number from the period January 2021 to August 2022 (post-calculator) using the chi-square test. The patients' characteristics, referral urgency, triage outcome, Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 score and cancer diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 1110 referrals from the pre-calculator period were compared with 1559 from the post-calculator period. Patient characteristics were comparable for both cohorts. More patients were referred on the cancer pathway in the post-calculator cohort (pre-calculator patients 51.1 per cent vs post-calculator 64.0 per cent). The cancer diagnosis rate increased from 2.7 per cent in the pre-calculator cohort to 3.3 per cent in the post-calculator cohort. A lower rate of cancer diagnosis in the non-cancer pathway occurred in the cohort managed using the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 (10 per cent vs 23 per cent, p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator version 2 demonstrated high sensitivity in cancer diagnosis. Further studies are required to improve the predictive strength of the calculator.