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
. 2018 Jan;68(666):e63-e72.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X694169. Epub 2017 Dec 18.

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

Affiliations

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

Ruth Swann et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this.

Aim: To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit.

Design and setting: Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England.

Method: Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management.

Results: Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0-27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more.

Conclusion: The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.

Keywords: cancer; clinical audit; diagnosis; investigations; morbidity; primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Department of Health, NHS Cancer reform strategy. 2007. http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/NSF/Documents/CancerReformStrategy.pdf (accessed 20 Nov 2017)
    1. Department of Health Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer. 2011 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil... (accessed 20 Nov 2017)
    1. Mendonca SC, Abel GA, Saunders CL, et al. Pre-referral general practitioner consultations and subsequent experience of cancer care: evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016;25(3):478–490. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Neal RD, Tharmanathan P, France B, et al. Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):S92–S107. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abel GA, Saunders CL, Mendonca SC, et al. Variation and statistical reliability of publicly reported primary care diagnostic activity indicators for cancer: a cross-sectional ecological study of routine data. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006607. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources