Evaluating video and hybrid group consultations in general practice: mixed-methods, participatory study protocol (TOGETHER 2).

Background: General practice is facing an unprecedented challenge in managing the consequences of the pandemic. In the midst of a policy drive to balance remote and in-person service provision, substantial workload pressures remain, together with increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, and declining staff numbers and morale. To address these challenges, some practices in the UK have been delivering video and hybrid group consultations (VHGCs) providing clinical care to multiple patients at the same time. Despite positive initial findings and enthusiasm, there are still gaps in our understanding of the influence VHGCs have on patient experience, healthcare utilisation, quality, safety, equity and affordability. Objectives: To generate an in-depth understanding of VHGCs for chronic conditions in general practice, surface assumptions and sociotechnical dynamics, inform practice and extend theorisation. Methods: Mixed-methods, multi-site research study using co-design and participatory methods, from qualitative, quantitative and cost-related perspectives. WP1 includes a national, cross-sectional survey on VHGC provision across the UK. In WP2 we will engage patients and general practice staff in co-design workshops to develop VHGC models with emphasis on digital inclusion and equity. In WP3 we will carry out a mixed-methods process evaluation in up to 10 GP practices across England (5 sites already running VHGCs and 5 comparison sites). Qualitative methods will include interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation to examine the experiences of patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, commissioners and policy-makers. Quantitative methods will examine the impact of VHGCs on healthcare utilisation in primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction, engagement and activation. We will also assess value for money of group and individual care models from a health economics perspective. Conclusions: We aim to develop transferable learning on sociotechnical change in healthcare delivery, using VHGCs as an exemplar of technology-supported innovation. Findings will also inform the design of a future study.

Aim: To better understand how group consultations for chronic conditions can benefit patients and the health service when delivered via video and/or in-person in general practice. Background: Before the pandemic, group consultations were starting to gain ground in the UK as a new way of delivering clinical care to multiple patients at the same time, with potential benefits resulting from peer support and time efficiencies. When in-person care was restricted due to Covid-19, clinicians started delivering group consultations over video. Despite significant interest, we still know little about how group consultations delivered over video or hybrid models (combining video and in-person sessions) can be best implemented. Research methods: In up to 5 GP practices across England, where group consultations are already being delivered, we will evaluate how these new approaches to clinical care are implemented, and how they may support an inclusive service that engages patients with different needs and preferences. The evaluation will include interviews with patients, carers, NHS staff, policy-makers and commissioners, as well as group discussions and observations, including research led by patients themselves. We will also collect numerical data on the number and type of patients attending, whether they are more satisfied or confident with their self-management, or less likely to need to go to hospital. We will explore costs associated with these new ways of delivering care and will develop comparisons to face-to-face individual appointments. We will also work with comparable clinical sites only delivering one-to-one appointments, to collect numerical data on patient attendance, satisfaction and use of health services. With the involvement of our patient and public involvement (PPI) group, we will bring together our data to develop practical knowledge.

Current experience and future potential of facilitating access to digital NHS primary care services in England: the Di-Facto mixed-methods study.

Background: Current National Health Service policy in England encourages enhanced digital access in primary care service provision. In this study, we investigate 'digital facilitation' - that range of processes, procedures and personnel which seeks to support National Health Service primary care patients in their uptake and use of online services. Objectives: Identify, characterise and explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with different models of digital facilitation currently in use in general practice which are aimed at improving patient access to online services in general practice in England. Use the resulting intelligence to design a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. Explore how patients with mental health conditions experience digital facilitation and gauge their need for this support. Design: Observational mixed-methods study (literature review, surveys, ethnographic observation and interviews); formal synthesis of findings. Setting: General practice in four regions of England. Participants: Practice survey: 156 staff. Patient survey: 3051 patients. Mental health survey: 756 patients. General practitioner patient survey: 3 million responders. Ethnographic case-studies: 8 practices; interviews with 36 staff, 33 patients and 10 patients with a mental health condition. Stakeholder interviews: 19 participants. Intervention: Digital facilitation as undertaken in general practice. Main outcome measures: Patient and practice staff reported use of, and views of, digital facilitation. Data sources: Surveys, qualitative research; national General Practitioner Patient Survey (2019-22). Review methods: Scoping-review methodology applied to academic and grey literature published 2015-20. Results: While we did find examples of digital facilitation in routine practice, these often involved using passive or reactive modes of support. The context of COVID, and the necessary acceleration (at that time) of the move to a digital-first model of primary care, shaped the way digital facilitation was delivered. There was lack of clarity over where the responsibility for facilitation efforts lay; it was viewed as the responsibility of 'others'. Patients living with mental health conditions had similar needs and experiences regarding digital facilitation to other patients. Limitations: The context of the COVID pandemic placed limitations on the project. Fewer practices responded to the practice survey than anticipated; reconfiguration of general practices to support COVID measures was a key consideration during non-participant observation with social distancing and other measures still in place during fieldwork. Conclusions: Digital facilitation, while not a widely recognised concept, is important in supporting the move to a National Health Service with enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access. General practice staff are allocating resources to provide such efforts in general practices in England. The establishment of clear lines of responsibility, the development of digital tools and platforms that work for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are needed if digital facilitation is to support the intended digital revolution. Future work: We did not find one single dominant or preferred model of digital facilitation which might reasonably be considered to form the basis of an intervention to be tested. Rather, there is a need to co-develop such an intervention with patients, general practice staff and relevant policy experts. We outline a framework for a future evaluation of such an intervention. Study registration: This study is registered as ResearchRegistry6523 (www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/?view_2_search=Di-Facto&view_2_page=1) and PROSPERO CRD42020189019 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128268) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Online services are common in the National Health Service. This research looked at 'digital facilitation' in general practices. Digital facilitation is about supporting National Health Service patients in their use of online services. We aimed to understand how much digital facilitation is being used by general practices. We also looked at how digital facilitation happens and if it affects the number of people using online services. We looked at previous research to help us understand what approaches have been used to support patients to use online services. We used surveys to ask staff at general practices what they were already doing, and to ask patients about their experiences. We observed digital facilitation in general practices and spoke to patients and staff to help us understand the benefits and challenges of different approaches. We combined findings from the three stages outlined above to identify key aspects of digital facilitation. All stages of our research included discussions with the project's patient advisory group. We found that digital facilitation is seen as important and has many forms. Most general practices are using passive and reactive types of facilitation. An example of passive facilitation, initiated by the service but not involving direct inter-personal interaction, is the use of text messaging relating to ordering of repeat prescriptions online. An example of reactive facilitation is providing a response to a patient-initiated query regarding online access. There is clear scope to develop a more proactive approach to facilitation that actively engages patients. Our research highlights a lack of clarity over who is responsible for digital facilitation. Different people (patients, staff, policy-makers) often think that the responsibility lies with others. Investment in digital facilitation is needed. Tools and platforms for digital facilitation that meet patients' and general practices' needs should be developed.

The diagnostic performance of CA-125 for the detection of ovarian cancer in women from different ethnic groups: a cohort study of English primary care data.

BACKGROUND: CA-125 testing is a recommended first line investigation for women presenting with possible symptoms of ovarian cancer in English primary care, to help determine whether further investigation for ovarian cancer is needed. It is currently not known how well the CA-125 test performs in ovarian cancer detection for patients from different ethnic groups. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study utilising English primary care data linked to the national cancer registry was undertaken. Women aged ≥ 40 years with a CA-125 test between 2010 and 2017 were included. Logistic regression predicted one-year ovarian cancer incidence by ethnicity, adjusting for age, deprivation status, and comorbidity score. The estimated incidence of ovarian cancer by CA-125 level was modelled for each ethnic group using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: The diagnostic performance of CA-125 differed for women from different ethnicities. In an unadjusted analysis, predicted CA-125 levels for Asian and Black women were higher than White women at corresponding probabilities of ovarian cancer. The higher PPVs for White women compared to Asian or Black women were eliminated by inclusion of covariates. CONCLUSION: The introduction of ethnicity-specific thresholds may increase the specificity and PPVs of CA-125 in ovarian cancer detection at the expense of sensitivity, particularly for Asian and Black women. As such, we cannot recommend the use of ethnicity-specific thresholds for CA-125.

Clinical decision-making on lung cancer investigations in primary care: a vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and symptom type on general practitioners' (GP's) symptom attribution and clinical decision-making in relation to lung cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: Vignette survey with a 2×2 mixed factorial design. SETTING: A nationwide online survey exploring clinical decision-making in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 109 GPs based in the United Kingdom (UK) who were registered as responders on Dynata (an online survey platform). INTERVENTIONS: GPs were presented with four vignettes which described a patient aged 75 with a smoking history presenting with worsening symptoms (either general or respiratory) and with or without a pre-existing diagnosis of COPD. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs indicated the three most likely diagnoses (free-text) and selected four management approaches (20 pre-coded options). Attribution of symptoms to lung cancer and referral for urgent chest X-ray were primary outcomes. Alternative diagnoses and management approaches were explored as secondary outcomes. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used, including random intercepts for individual GPs. RESULTS: 422 vignettes were completed. There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of lung cancer attribution (OR=1.1, 95% CI=0.5-2.4, p=0.914). There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of urgent chest X-ray referral (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.3-1.2, p=0.12) or as a predictor when in combination with symptom type (OR=0.9, 95% CI=0.5-1.8, p=0.767). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer was identified as a possible diagnosis for persistent respiratory by only one out of five GPs, irrespective of the patients' COPD status. Increasing awareness among GPs of the link between COPD and lung cancer may increase the propensity for performing chest X-rays and referral for diagnostic testing for symptomatic patients.

Exploring How Patients Are Supported to Use Online Services in Primary Care in England Through "Digital Facilitation": Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Health service policy in many jurisdictions is driving greater investment into digital primary care services. While some patients and practices may benefit, there are concerns that not all are able or wish to access primary care services online. "Digital facilitation" is the "range of processes, procedures, and personnel seeking to support patients in their uptake and use of online services" and may address such concerns. OBJECTIVE: As part of a multimethod research program, we undertook surveys of practice staff and patients to gain insight into the support being offered by practices and explore patients' experiences of this support. METHODS: General practices from 4 regions of England were sent a questionnaire exploring the modes of digital facilitation offered, the personnel involved in its delivery, and views on the motivations and drivers for providing support. Moreover, 12,822 patients registered with 62 general practices (predominantly those providing practice survey responses) were sent a questionnaire exploring their experiences of any support offered by their practice to use online services. RESULTS: Almost one-third of practices (156/500, 31.2%) responded to the practice survey, with most reporting using passive modes of digital facilitation (eg, display, leaflets, and SMS text messages) and few using active modes (eg, offering tablets or computers or using practice champions). However, 90.9% (130/143) reported providing ad hoc support. Practices agreed that it was the responsibility of both the practice (105/144, 72.9%) and the wider National Health Service (118/143, 82.5%) to support patients in using online services and that providing such support benefited the practice (126/144, 87.5%) and their patients (132/144, 91.7%). Nearly a quarter of the patients (3051/12,822, 23.8%) responded to the patient survey, with few (522/3051, 17.11% or less) reporting awareness of any modes of digital facilitation apart from text messages and emails (1205/3051, 39.5%) and only 13.36% (392/2935) reporting receiving support to use online services. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that older patients had a lower likelihood of 4 outcomes: being aware of, or of using, digital facilitation efforts, or being told about or being helped to use online services (all P<.05), particularly with regard to being helped to use online services (adjusted odds ratio for patients aged 85 years versus those aged 55-64 years: 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.36). However, ethnic minority participants or those for whom their first language was not English had positive associations with these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: General practices recognize that patients would benefit from support to access online services. However, the support provided is often passive or ad hoc, and patients were seldom aware of digital facilitation efforts that their practice provided. There is potential to increase engagement with online primary care services by providing more support for all patients, particularly to provide targeted support for older patients.

The effects of the first UK lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic on primary-care-recorded cancer and type-2 diabetes mellitus records: A population-based quasi-experimental time series study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted consulting behaviour, healthcare delivery and cancer diagnostic services. This study quantifies the cancer incidence coded in UK general practice electronic health records and deviations from historical trends after the March 2020 national lockdown. For comparison, we study the coded incidence of type-2 diabetes mellitus, which is diagnosed almost entirely within primary care. METHODS: Poisson interrupted time series models investigated the coded incidence of diagnoses in adults aged ≥ 18 years in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink before (01/03/2017-29/02/2020) and after (01/03/2020-28/02/2022) the first lockdown. Datasets were stratified by age, sex, and general practice per 28-day aggregation period. Models captured incidence changes associated with lockdown, both immediately and over time based on historical trends. RESULTS: We studied 189,457 incident cancer and 191,915 incident diabetes records in 1480 general practices over 52,374,197 person-years at risk. During 01/03/2020-28/02/2022, there were fewer incident records of cancer (n = 22,199, 10.49 %, 10.44-10.53 %) and diabetes (n = 15,709, 7.57 %, 7.53-7.61 %) than expected. Within cancers, impacts ranged from no effect (e.g. unknown primary, pancreas, and ovary), to small effects for lung (n = 773, 3.11 %, 3.09-3.13 % fewer records) and female breast (n = 2686, 6.77 %, 6.73-6.81 %), to the greatest effect for bladder (n = 2874, 31.15 %, 31.00-31.31 %). Diabetes and cancer records recovered maximally to 86 % (95 %CI 80.3-92.7 %) and 74 % (95 %CI 70.3-78.6 %) in July 2021 and May 2021, respectively, of their expected values, declining again until the study end. CONCLUSION: The "missing" cancer and diabetes diagnoses in primary care may comprise delayed or missed diagnoses, reduced incidence associated with excess deaths from COVID-19, and potentially increased non-coded recording of diagnoses. Future validation studies must quantify the concordance between primary care and National Cancer Registration Data and Hospital Episode Statistics over the pandemic era.

Investigating Patient Use and Experience of Online Appointment Booking in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Online appointment booking is a commonly used tool in several industries. There is limited evidence about the benefits and challenges of using online appointment booking in health care settings. Potential benefits include convenience and the ability to track appointments, although some groups of patients may find it harder to engage with online appointment booking. We sought to understand how patients in England used and experienced online appointment booking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients in relation to their use of online appointment booking in general practice and investigate patients' views regarding online appointment booking arrangements. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study set in English general practice comprising a retrospective analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and semistructured interviews with patients. Data used in the retrospective analysis comprised responses to the 2018 and 2019 GPPS analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Semistructured interviews with purposively sampled patients from 11 general practices in England explored experiences of and views on online appointment booking. Framework analysis was used to allow for comparison with the findings of the retrospective analysis. RESULTS: The retrospective analysis included 1,327,693 GPPS responders (2018-2019 combined). We conducted 43 interviews with patients with a variety of experiences and awareness of online appointment booking; of these 43 patients, 6 (14%) were from ethnic minority groups. In the retrospective analysis, more patients were aware that online appointment booking was available (581,224/1,288,341, 45.11%) than had experience using it (203,184/1,301,694, 15.61%). There were deprivation gradients for awareness and use and a substantial decline in both awareness and use in patients aged >75 years. For interview participants, age and life stage were factors influencing experiences and perceptions, working patients valued convenience, and older patients preferred to use the telephone. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware of (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.44) and more likely to use (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.63-1.67) online appointment booking. Interview participants with long-term conditions described online appointment booking as useful for routine nonurgent appointments. Patients in deprived areas were clustered in practices with low awareness and use of online appointment booking among GPPS respondents (OR for use 0.65, 95% CI 0.64-0.67). Other key findings included the influence of the availability of appointments online and differences in the registration process for accessing online booking. CONCLUSIONS: Whether and how patients engage with online appointment booking is influenced by the practice with which they are registered, whether they live with long-term conditions, and their deprivation status. These factors should be considered in designing and implementing online appointment booking and have implications for patient engagement with the wider range of online services offered in general practice.

Supporting patients with a mental health diagnosis to use online services in primary care. A qualitative interview study.

Objective: The increase in reliance on online services for general practice has the potential to increase inequalities within some populations. Patients with a mental health condition are one such group. Digital facilitation is defined as a range of processes, procedures, and people, which seek to support NHS patients in using online services. This study aimed to examine the views and experiences of digital facilitation in primary care amongst patients living with a mental health condition. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients living with a mental health condition, recruited from general practices across England participating in the Di-Facto study. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Results: Interviews were conducted with ten participants with a mental health condition, recruited from five general practices. Three themes were identified: (1) familiarity with online services; (2) experiences of those using online services; (3) the need for digital facilitation. The need for digital facilitation was identified in the registration for online services, and in trusting online services. Conclusions: Online services offer convenience for patients, but registration for the use of such services remains a potential area of difficulty. Participants had difficulties with registering for online services and had concerns about trust in using them. Support offered by general practices in using online services needs to be varied and adaptable to meet the needs of individual patients.

Development and Implementation of a Digital Quality Measure of Emergency Cancer Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Missed and delayed cancer diagnoses are common, harmful, and often preventable. Automated measures of quality of cancer diagnosis are lacking but could identify gaps and guide interventions. We developed and implemented a digital quality measure (dQM) of cancer emergency presentation (EP) using electronic health record databases of two health systems and characterized the measure's association with missed opportunities for diagnosis (MODs) and mortality. METHODS: On the basis of literature and expert input, we defined EP as a new cancer diagnosis within 30 days after emergency department or inpatient visit. We identified EPs for lung cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Geisinger from 2016 to 2020. We validated measure accuracy and identified preceding MODs through standardized chart review of 100 records per cancer per health system. Using VA's longitudinal encounter and mortality data, we applied logistic regression to assess EP's association with 1-year mortality, adjusting for cancer stage and demographics. RESULTS: Among 38,565 and 2,914 patients with lung cancer and 14,674 and 1,649 patients with CRCs at VA and Geisinger, respectively, our dQM identified EPs in 20.9% and 9.4% of lung cancers, and 22.4% and 7.5% of CRCs. Chart reviews revealed high positive predictive values for EPs across sites and cancer types (72%-90%), and a substantial percent represented MODs (48.8%-84.9%). EP was associated with significantly higher odds of 1-year mortality for lung cancer and CRC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78 and 1.83, respectively, 95% CI, 1.63 to 1.86 and 1.61 to 2.07). CONCLUSION: A dQM for cancer EP was strongly associated with both mortality and MODs. The findings suggest a promising automated approach to measuring quality of cancer diagnosis in US health systems.

Informing the development of a scoring system for National Health Service Clinical Impact Awards; a Delphi process and simulated scoring exercise.

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK's Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0-10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0-10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements.

What helps patients access web-based services in primary care? Free-text analysis of patient responses to the Di-Facto questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. METHODS: The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021-2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. RESULTS: Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and 'what works for me', a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access.

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.

UK research data resources based on primary care electronic health records: review and summary for potential users.

BACKGROUND: The range and scope of electronic health record (EHR) data assets in the UK has recently increased, which has been mainly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarising and comparing the large primary care resources will help researchers to choose the data resources most suited to their needs. AIM: To describe the current landscape of UK EHR databases and considerations of access and use of these resources relevant to researchers. DESIGN & SETTING: Narrative review of EHR databases in the UK. METHOD: Information was collected from the Health Data Research Innovation Gateway, publicly available websites and other published data, and from key informants. The eligibility criteria were population-based open-access databases sampling EHRs across the whole population of one or more countries in the UK. Published database characteristics were extracted and summarised, and these were corroborated with resource providers. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Nine large national primary care EHR data resources were identified and summarised. These resources are enhanced by linkage to other administrative data to a varying extent. Resources are mainly intended to support observational research, although some can support experimental studies. There is considerable overlap of populations covered. While all resources are accessible to bona fide researchers, access mechanisms, costs, timescales, and other considerations vary across databases. CONCLUSION: Researchers are currently able to access primary care EHR data from several sources. Choice of data resource is likely to be driven by project needs and access considerations. The landscape of data resources based on primary care EHRs in the UK continues to evolve.

Pre-Referral Primary Care Blood Tests and Symptom Presentation before Cancer Diagnosis: National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Data.

BACKGROUND: Blood tests can support the diagnostic process in primary care. Understanding how symptomatic presentations are associated with blood test use in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer can help to benchmark current practices and guide interventions. METHODS: English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit data on 39,751 patients with incident cancer in 2018 were analysed. The frequency of four generic (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests, and inflammatory markers) and five organ-specific (cancer biomarkers (PSA or CA125), serum protein electrophoresis, ferritin, bone profile, and amylase) blood tests was described for a total of 83 presenting symptoms. The adjusted analysis explored variation in blood test use by the symptom-positive predictive value (PPV) group. RESULTS: There was a large variation in generic blood test use by presenting symptoms, being higher in patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer who presented with nonspecific symptoms (e.g., fatigue 81% or loss of appetite 79%), and lower in those who presented with alarm symptoms (e.g., breast lump 3% or skin lesion 1%). Serum protein electrophoresis (reflecting suspicion of multiple myeloma) was most frequently used in cancer patients who presented with back pain (18%), and amylase measurement (reflecting suspicion of pancreatic cancer) was used in those who presented with upper abdominal pain (14%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use was greatest in men with cancer who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (88%), and CA125 in women with cancer who presented with abdominal distention (53%). Symptoms with PPV values between 2.00-2.99% were associated with greater test use (64%) compared with 52% and 51% in symptoms with PPVs in the 0.01-0.99 or 1.00-1.99% range and compared with 42% and 31% in symptoms with PPVs in either the 3.00-4.99 or ≥5% range (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Generic blood test use reflects the PPV of presenting symptoms, and the use of organ-specific tests is greater in patients with symptomatic presentations with known associations with certain cancer sites. There are opportunities for greater blood test use in patients presenting with symptoms that do not meet referral thresholds (i.e., <3% PPV for cancer) where information gain to support referral decisions is likely greatest. The findings benchmark blood test use in cancer patients, highlighting opportunities for increasing use.

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence.

OBJECTIVES: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

Are There Ethnic Differences in Recorded Features among Patients Subsequently Diagnosed with Cancer? An English Longitudinal Data-Linked Study.

We investigated ethnic differences in the presenting features recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis. METHODS: English population-based cancer-registry-linked primary care data were analysed. We identified the coded features of six cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, and myeloma) in the year pre-diagnosis. Logistic regression models investigated ethnic differences in first-incident cancer features, adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 130,944 patients, 92% were White. In total, 188,487 incident features were recorded in the year pre-diagnosis, with 48% (89,531) as sole features. Compared with White patients, Asian and Black patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer were more likely than White patients to have multiple features; the opposite was seen for the Black and Other ethnic groups with lung or prostate cancer. The proportion with relevant recorded features was broadly similar by ethnicity, with notable cancer-specific exceptions. Asian and Black patients were more likely to have low-risk features (e.g., cough, upper abdominal pain) recorded. Non-White patients were less likely to have alarm features. CONCLUSION: The degree to which these differences reflect disease, patient or healthcare factors is unclear. Further research examining the predictive value of cancer features in ethnic minority groups and their association with cancer outcomes is needed.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority. AIM: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. METHOD: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models. RESULTS: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%). CONCLUSION: In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.