Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 23:15:308.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7.

Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways - a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients

Henry Jensen  1   2 , Marie Louise Tørring  3 , Frede Olesen  4 , Jens Overgaard  5 , Morten Fenger-Grøn  6 , Peter Vedsted  7
Affiliations

Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways - a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients

Henry Jensen et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: From 2008, Danish general practitioners could refer patients suspected of having cancer to standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs). We aimed to compare the length of the diagnostic interval in 2010 with the length of the diagnostic interval before (2004/05) and during (2007/08) the implementation of CPPs in Denmark for all incident cancer patients who attended general practice prior to the cancer diagnosis.

Methods: General practitioner questionnaires and register data on 12,558 patients were used to compare adjusted diagnostic interval across time by quantile regression.

Results: The median diagnostic interval was 14 (95% CI: 11;16) days shorter during and 17 (95% CI: 15;19) days shorter after the implementation of CPPs than before. The diagnostic interval was 15 (95% CI: 12;17) days shorter for patients referred to a CPP in 2010 than during the implementation, whereas patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 had a 4 (95% CI: 1;7) days longer median diagnostic interval; the pattern was similar, but larger at the 75(th) and 90(th) percentiles.

Conclusion: The diagnostic interval was significantly lower after CPP implementation. Yet, patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 tended to have a longer diagnostic interval compared to during the implementation. CPPs may thus only seem to expedite the diagnostic process for some cancer patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart for cancer patients. Boxes on the left indicate exclusion of patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria and boxes on the right indicate drop-outs due to non-response and missing data.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative frequencies of diagnostic interval (DI) before, during and after CPP implementation in Denmark. DI ranked in order and depicted by a Lorenz diagram. DI of longer than 365 days omitted for illustration purposes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Prades J, Espinas JA, Font R, Argimon JM, Borras JM. Implementing a Cancer Fast-track Programme between primary and specialised care in Catalonia (Spain): a mixed methods study. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:753–9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.308. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Probst HB, Hussain ZB, Andersen O. Cancer patient pathways in Denmark as a joint effort between bureaucrats, health professionals and politicians-A national Danish project. Health Policy. 2012;105:65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olesen F, Hansen RP, Vedsted P. Delay in diagnosis: the experience in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(Suppl 2):S5–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605383. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Toustrup K, Lambertsen K, Birke-Sorensen H, Ulhoi B, Sorensen L, Grau C. Reduction in waiting time for diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer - a fast track study. Acta Oncol. 2011;50:636–41. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2010.551139. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lyhne NM, Christensen A, Alanin MC, Bruun MT, Jung TH, Bruhn MA, et al. Waiting times for diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer in Denmark in 2010 compared to 1992 and 2002. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1627–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.11.034. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources