Straight to test: introduction of a city-wide protocol driven investigation of suspected colorectal cancer

A colorectal straight-to-test cancer pathway with general-practitioner-guided triage improves attainment of the 28-day diagnosis target and increases outpatient clinic capacity

AIM

This study investigates whether a straight-to-test (STT) colorectal cancer pathway improves attainment of the National Health Service (NHS) England 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard and the effect of the pathway on reducing face-to-face outpatient clinic appointments. Patient satisfaction and the safety of a novel general practitioner (GP) led patient triage system regarding suitability for colonoscopy are also evaluated.

METHODS

This is an observational study of all patients managed via an STT colorectal cancer pathway between 1 September 2019 and 19 March 2020. Comparison is made with all patients referred on the suspected colorectal cancer pathway prior to implementation of the STT pathway from 1 January 2019 to 30 July 2019. Patient satisfaction with the STT pathway was assessed with a telephone-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

Attainment of the 28-day diagnosis target for all suspected colorectal cancer referrals improved following the establishment of the STT pathway (88% vs. 82%, P < 0.0001). From a potential total of 548 outpatient colorectal clinic appointments for patients on the STT pathway, 504 (92%) were avoided. In those eligible for the STT pathway, GP assessment of patients suitable for colonoscopy agreed with that of the colorectal department in 93% of cases. Of the 50 patients who undertook the satisfaction survey, 86% were satisfied or very satisfied with the pathway. No patient suffered adverse events as a result of their STT investigations.

CONCLUSION

An STT pathway for suspected colorectal cancer referrals with novel GP-led patient triage safely streamlines patients through the suspected colorectal cancer diagnostic pathway and significantly reduces requirement for face-to-face outpatient clinic attendance. This is achieved with high patient satisfaction.

Straight-to-test for the two-week-wait colorectal cancer pathway under the updated NICE guidelines reduces time to cancer diagnosis and treatment

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines widened the referral criteria for the two-week-wait pathway for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer. We implemented a straight-to-test protocol to accommodate the anticipated increase in referrals. We evaluated the impact of these changes for relevant pathway metrics and clinical outcomes using a retrospective cohort study with historic controls.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed data from all patients referred to a teaching hospital via the two-week-wait pathway for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancer under the previous guidelines between 1 March and 31 August 2015 compared with the same period in 2016, when the updated guidelines and straight-to-test protocol had been implemented.

RESULTS

In the 2015 cohort, there were 64 cancer diagnoses from 664 referrals (9.6% pick-up) compared with 58 cancer diagnoses from 954 referrals in the 2016 cohort (6.1% pick-up). Our straight-to-test protocol reduced the median time to cancer diagnosis by 12.5 days (P < 0.001) and reduced the median time to cancer treatment by 7.5 days (P < 0.05) An increased proportion of non-colorectal cancers were diagnosed in 2016 compared with 2015, (37.9% vs 17.2%, P < 0.05) and more adenomas were removed in 2016 compared with 2015 (377 vs 193).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our straight-to-test protocol has resulted in a reduction in times to cancer diagnosis and cancer treatment, despite an increase in the number of referrals. The new referral criteria have considerable resource implications, but their implementation did not result in an increase in the total number of cancers diagnosed.

A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care

BACKGROUND

Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies.

CONCLUSION

The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Straight-to-test colonoscopy for 2-week-wait referrals improves time to diagnosis of colorectal cancer and is feasible in a high-volume unit

AIM

We have introduced 'straight-to-test' (STT) colonoscopy as part of our 2-week-wait (2WW) pathway to address increasing numbers of urgent referrals for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the National Health Service. In this study we evaluated the ability of this initiative to shorten the time to diagnosis of CRC.

METHOD

We amended our 2WW referral form to include performance status and comorbidities. General practitioners were asked to provide data on estimated glomerular filtration rate and full blood count/ferritin. Our 2WW referrals were screened by a colorectal consultant and a nurse specialist. Those deemed unsuitable for STT were offered outpatient assessment (OPA).

RESULTS

Of 553 2WW referrals screened, 352 were considered suitable, 65 of whom failed a telephone assessment or were uncontactable, and accordingly 287 were offered the STT pathway. The STT group was significantly younger than the OPA group (median 65.9 years vs 78.7 years; P < 0.0001). STT colonoscopy significantly reduced the time to first test (13 days vs 22 days; P < 0.0001) and tissue diagnosis from the referral date (17 days vs 24.5 days; P < 0.0001). Thirty-seven (6.8%) CRCs were detected. Proportionately fewer patients in the STT pathway were managed with 'best supportive care only' compared with patients attending OPA (one of 15 vs six of 22, respectively). STT colonoscopy obviated the need for clinic attendance before testing in 287 patients, representing a potential net cost benefit of at least £48 500 in 4 months.

CONCLUSION

STT colonoscopy was safe and effective for selecting out a group of symptomatic patients who could proceed straight to endoscopic examination and receive a diagnosis more rapidly.

Straight to flexible sigmoidoscopy: rationalization of 2-week wait referrals in suspected colorectal cancer

AIM

The 2-week wait pathway was designed to decrease the time from presentation to primary care of patients with 'red flag' symptoms of suspected cancer for review by a specialist for the diagnosis or exclusion of cancer. In our tertiary referral centre we have found that 968 colonoscopies per year are required to satisfy the demand for the 2-week wait, leading to limited colonoscopy availability for other services. We sought to determine the yield of colorectal cancer found at colonoscopy referred via the 2-week wait and referenced to the original red flag symptoms. This was in order to select the most efficacious alternative primary investigation based upon presenting symptoms.

METHOD

Electronic records were retrospectively analysed. All patients who went through the 2-week wait for suspicion of colorectal cancer in 2013 and were found to have colorectal cancer on colonoscopy were included. Patients not undergoing colonoscopy as the first investigation were excluded. The splenic flexure was deemed to be within the range of a flexible sigmoidoscope.

RESULTS

In all, 2950 referrals were made. 968 colonoscopies were performed as the primary investigation of which 35 were found to have colorectal cancer. No patients referred with rectal bleeding and another symptom had a tumour more proximal to the range of flexible sigmoidoscopy. 80% of tumours proximal to the splenic flexure were suitable for CT diagnosis alone.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy alone as an initial investigation for patients presenting with rectal bleeding with or without additional colorectal symptoms. Patients with anaemia (without bleeding) or change in bowel habit (without bleeding) may be investigated with CT colonography alone; colonoscopy may then be used selectively prior to surgery.

What is the evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist non-emergency care? A systematic review and logic model synthesis

Background

Demand management describes any method used to monitor, direct or regulate patient referrals. Several strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions targeting primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Objective

This research aimed to conduct an inclusive systematic review and logic model synthesis in order to better understand factors impacting on the effectiveness of interventions targeting referral between primary and secondary medical health care.

Design

The approach combined systematic review with logic modelling synthesis techniques to develop an evidence-based framework of factors influencing the pathway between interventions and system-wide changes.

Setting

Primary health care.

Main outcome measures

Referral from primary to secondary care.

Review methods

Systematic searches were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. Quality of individual studies was appraised, with consideration of overall strength of evidence. A narrative synthesis and logic model summary of the data was completed.

Results

From a database of 8327 unique papers, 290 were included in the review. The intervention studies were grouped into four categories of education interventions (n = 50); process change interventions (n = 49); system change interventions (n = 38); and patient-focused interventions (n = 3). Effectiveness was assessed variously in these papers; however, there was a gap regarding the mechanisms whereby these interventions lead to demand management impacts. The findings suggest that, although individual-level interventions may be popular, the stronger evidence relates only to peer-review and feedback interventions. Process change interventions appeared to be more effective when the change resulted in the specialist being provided with more or better quality information about the patient. System changes including the community provision of specialist services by general practitioners, outreach provision by specialists and the return of inappropriate referrals appeared to have evidence of effect. The pathway whereby interventions might lead to service-wide impact was complex, with multiple factors potentially acting as barriers or facilitators to the change process. Factors related, first, to the doctor (including knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and previous experiences of a service), second, to the patient (including condition and social factors) and, third, to the influence of the doctor–patient relationship. We also identified a number of potentially influential factors at a local level, such as perceived waiting times and the availability of a specialist. These elements are key factors in the pathway between an intervention and intended demand management outcomes influencing both applicability and effectiveness.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the complexity of the referral process and multiple elements that will impact on intervention outcomes and applicability to a local area. Any interventions seeking to change referral practice need to address factors relating to the individual practitioner, the patient and also the situation in which the referral is taking place. These conclusions apply especially to referral management in a UK context where this whole range of factors/issues lies well within the remit of the NHS. This work highlights that intermediate outcomes are important in the referral pathway. It is recommended that researchers include measure of these intermediate outcomes in their evaluation of intervention effectiveness in order to determine where blocks to or facilitators of system-wide impact may be occurring.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004037.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence

BACKGROUND

Demand management defines any method used to monitor, direct, or regulate patient referrals. Strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions that target primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

AIM

To review the international evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHOD

Iterative, systematic searches of published and unpublished sources public health, health management, management, and grey literature databases from health care and other industries were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. A narrative synthesis of the data was completed to structure the evidence into groups of similar interventions.

RESULTS

The searches generated 8327 unique results, of which 140 studies were included. Interventions were grouped into four intervention categories: GP education (n = 50); process change (n = 49); system change (n = 38); and patient-focused (n = 3). It is clear that there is no 'magic bullet' to managing demand for secondary care services: although some groups of interventions may have greater potential for development, given the existing evidence that they can be effective in specific contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

To tackle demand management of primary care services, the focus cannot be on primary care alone; a whole-systems approach is needed because the introduction of interventions in primary care is often just the starting point of the referral process. In addition, more research is needed to develop and evaluate interventions that acknowledge the role of the patient in the referral decision.

The straight to test endoscopy service for suspected colorectal cancer: meeting national targets but are we meeting our patients' expectations?

AIM

The NHS Cancer Plan describes initiatives to improve patient care in the UK, including the two-week rule cancer referral pathway. To meet this target a straight to test (STT) endoscopy service was devised to expedite diagnosis of suspected colorectal cancer. Our novel study aimed to determine patient satisfaction with this new approach to rapid access investigation.

METHOD

An anonymized questionnaire was posted to 300 patients who had undergone STT endoscopy in our unit between January and June 2010. It assessed satisfaction with the service overall, time from referral to investigation, pre-test information, bowel preparation instructions and time to results as well as preference for a traditional pre-test or post-test outpatient appointment and awareness that the referral was for suspected bowel cancer.

RESULTS

In all, 174 questionnaires were obtained (58% yield; mean age 68.8; 44.8% men). 82.2% of patients were 'very satisfied' with the service overall, 82.8% with time from referral to test, 75.2% with time from test to results, 73% with endoscopy information and 69.5% with bowel preparation instructions. Eight per cent would rather have seen a specialist prior to endoscopy, 31.6% would have preferred a post-test appointment and 68.4% of patients were aware that referral was for suspected bowel cancer.

CONCLUSION

Straight to test is popular with patients. It offers a fast and cost effective service in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and meets national targets whilst reducing the volume burden on outpatient clinics. However, its success heavily relies on accurate communication between general practitioner, patient and secondary care.

Same-day assessment and management of urgent (2-week wait) colorectal referrals: an analysis of the outcome of 1606 patients attending an endoscopy unit-based colorectal clinic

AIM

The Rapid Access Diagnosis and Remedy (RADAR) clinic combines 2-week wait (TWW) specialist consultation with 'straight-to-test' flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) for left-sided 'red-flag' TWW criteria (excluding right-sided mass or iron-deficiency anaemia). The study aims were to determine the effectiveness of RADAR in differentiating colorectal cancer from benign disease and to evaluate the need for whole colonic investigation (WCI) following FS, in symptomatic patients.

METHOD

Prospectively collated data of all RADAR patients from November 2005 to November 2009 were analysed, excluding patients referred internally for a FS. The local histology database was later interrogated to detect any missed cancers.

RESULTS

Of 1690 patients (729 men; median (range) age: 68 (18-96) years) assessed in RADAR, 84 were excluded. Colorectal cancer (CRC) was diagnosed in 117 (7.3%). Eighty-seven cancers were diagnosed on the day of attendance and a further 13 within a week (88.9% overall). Two patients after a cancer-free FS were found to have a right-sided CRC on WCI (0.24%) and one synchronous cancer was found. No patient with a cancer-free FS having a WCI was subsequently found to have CRC at a median of 35 (12-58) months.

CONCLUSION

Flexible sigmoidoscopy, in the context of an endoscopy unit TWW clinic, allows same-day diagnosis of most patients referred with left-sided symptoms, and immediate reassurance and treatment of most benign diagnoses. For these patients, the use of routine WCI following a cancer-free FS does not appear to be beneficial. Adopting this system would significantly reduce the number of barium enemas and colonoscopies currently performed.

The impact of the two-week wait referral pathway on rectal cancer survival

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with rectal cancer referred through the two-week wait (TWW) system with those identified by routine referral pathways (non-TWW).

METHOD

A prospective study was carried out of 125 consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2005 (6 years) in one district general hospital. Data were recorded prospectively in a local clinicopathological registry. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (TWW) and group 2 (routine referral pathway).

RESULTS

Fifty-two (41%) of the 125 patients were diagnosed through the TWW (group 1). There was no significant difference in patient demographics, including baseline tumour characteristics, between the two groups. There was no difference in preoperative or postoperative T stage between the two groups (P = 0.63). There was no significant difference in circumferential margin positivity (five of 52 in group 1 vs four of 73 in group 2; P = 0.52) or local recurrence rates (P = 0.37). The 5-year all-cause mortality was 49% for group 1 and 52% for group 2 (P = 0.3). The overall disease-free survival was similar in the two groups (1521 days for group 1 vs 1591 days for group 1, P = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

Referral under the TWW strategy does not translate into improved survival in rectal cancer.

Surgical vs general practitioner assessment: diagnostic accuracy in 2-week-wait colorectal cancer referrals

AIM

It has been recommended that patients with suspected colorectal cancer should proceed straight to an endoscopic test to increase speed of diagnosis, using only the information in the general practitioner's referral letter. This study aims to establish whether the diagnostic accuracy of the first surgical outpatient assessment is significantly greater than the general practitioner's assessment and if so by what means.

METHOD

Demographic variables, symptoms and signs were collected from the first surgical outpatient assessment letters and the general practitioners' referral letters in 2-week-wait colorectal cancer referrals made between 2002 and 2005. Multiple logistic regression models derived from both the surgeons' and the general practitioners' letters were compared with receiver operator characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Variables were collected from 978 2-week-wait colorectal cancer referrals. The median age was 69 years (range 19-98) and the male to female ratio was 1:2. Seventy-eight referrals were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Surgeons' models demonstrated significantly greater diagnostic accuracy than general practitioners' models (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.73; P < 0.003). General practitioners' letters contained significantly less information than surgeons' letters (P < 0.001), but correcting for this did not account for the difference in diagnostic accuracy. The single variable that accounted for the difference in diagnostic accuracy was examination of the rectum by rigid sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Rigid sigmoidoscopy significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment in patients with suspected colorectal cancer. If rigid sigmoidoscopy were omitted in a straight-to-test pathway, some patients would be denied the opportunity for immediate diagnosis.

Open-access colonoscopy: outcomes of referrals from the emergency department

AIM

The study investigated the diagnostic outcome of colonoscopy referrals from the emergency department (ED) via an open-access system.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study over two years was performed on all patients under 65 years referred for open-access colonoscopy by the ED in a hospital with an annual ED attendance of 140,000. Patient characteristics and presenting symptoms were retrieved. Waiting times from presentation to colonoscopy were recorded.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 266 patients were referred, of whom 37 defaulted, leaving 229 patients who had a colonoscopy. The mean age was 48.3 ± 11.3 (SD) and the female/male ratio was 229/125. The most frequent presenting symptoms included: rectal bleeding (n = 142, 62%), change of bowel habit (n = 47, 20.5%) and abdominal pain (n = 40, 17.5%). The median waiting time from presentation to colonoscopy was 17 (range 1-69) days. A positive colonoscopic finding was recorded in 45.4%, including colorectal cancer in 12 (5.2%).

CONCLUSION

The rate of a positive diagnoses from the ED-based colonoscopy referral service was comparable to that of the general Hong Kong population. This approach may help to reduce the waiting time for colonoscopy in a specialist colorectal clinic.

The 'straight to test' initiative reduces both diagnostic and treatment waiting times for colorectal cancer: outcomes after 2 years

AIM

This study aimed to determine whether a 'straight to test'(STT) strategy for 2-week wait (2 wk) referrals for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) reduced the time to diagnosis and treatment for patients with CRC.

METHOD

Consecutive 2-week referrals for suspected CRC over a period of 2 years from February 2007 were analysed. The times to the first diagnostic test and treatment and the cancers identified were analysed for those going to STT or the outpatient clinic.

RESULTS

Of 662 patients having a 2 wk referral, 519 (78.4%) were suitable for the hospital colorectal telephone triage service, 121 (18.3%) patients went to STT and 502 (75.8%) were seen in the clinic. Of these 401 (79.8%) underwent diagnostic tests and 25 (6.2%) had CRC and in 12 (2.9%) patients other cancers were detected. In the STT group, 7 (5.8%) patients were diagnosed with CRC. The median time to first diagnostic test was 12 days (IQR 9-13) in the STT pathway, compared with 23 days (17-31) in those seen in the clinic (P < 0.0001). The median time to first treatment was 40 (32-48) days for those via STT, compared to 46 (28-55) days for those seen in the clinic (P = 0.004). A total of 162 CRC were diagnosed during the study period of whom 34 (20.9%) were 2 wk referrals (5.1% of all suspected CRC 2 wk referrals), and 14 (2.1%) other cancers were detected via this pathway.

CONCLUSION

STT speeds up the patient pathway by reducing the time to diagnosis and treatment for patients with CRC.

The interface of primary and oncology specialty care: from symptoms to diagnosis

Symptomatic individuals presenting to their primary care providers may need further evaluation and/or testing to determine whether a cancer is present. A number of issues arise in determining who needs further testing, what tests are needed, which specialists need to be involved, and how the testing can be organized and supported within a specific health-care system within a timely, coordinated, and cost-efficient manner. This article explores the challenges in the interface of primary care providers and specialists, includes evidence from prior research, and proposes research opportunities to understand and improve this phase of care.

Do patients require outpatient follow-up after rapid referral double contrast barium enema?

INTRODUCTION

In our hospital, patients above the age of 40 years referred with a change in bowel habit without rectal bleeding undergo a double contrast barium enema (DCBE) ideally within 2 weeks. Results of benign studies are sent to a consultant colorectal surgeon and a routine clinic visit arranged. The aim of this study was to identify whether, following DCBE, patients (i) presented at a later date with colorectal cancer and (ii) needed assessment in clinic.

METHOD

This is a review looking at all patients who underwent DCBE prior to routine clinic visit between January 2004 and December 2005. Hospital databases were cross-referenced to identify any patients presenting with a new diagnosis of colorectal malignancy between DCBE and April 2007. Clinic letters were reviewed to identify the number of outpatient visits prior to discharge and reasons for continued follow-up.

RESULTS

During the study period, 521 patients (age range 31-93 years, 316 female) had DCBE prior to assessment in clinic. Diagnoses: cancer 48 (9.2%), polyps 13 (2.5%), colitis 3 (0.6%), no significant pathology 457 (87.7%). Of this latter cohort, 387 (84.7%) were discharged after one clinic visit; 54 (11.9%) attended twice and 11 (2.4%) were seen more than twice. Reasons for multiple attendances were management of haemorrhoids/anal fissure or investigations of unrelated symptoms. No new cancers were identified in this cohort between January 2004 and April 2007.

CONCLUSION

Double contrast barium enema is a safe screening tool following a '2-week rule' referral with CIBH. Following a report of no significant pathology, there is no need to arrange routine follow-up.

Referral letters for 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer do not allow a 'straight-to-test' pathway

INTRODUCTION

Some clinicians have argued that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients can go 'straight-to-test' to facilitate time to diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the currently used referral letters are reliable enough to allow that pathway.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

General practitioner (GP) letters referring patients under the Two Week-Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were prospectively reviewed over a 6-month period. Three examining consultants were asked to outline the tests they would perform having only read the letter, and then again after a clinical consultation with the patient. The outcome of these tests was tracked.

RESULTS

A total of 217 referral letters of patients referred under Two Week Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were studied. Having just read the referral letter, the most frequently requested test was colonoscopy (148), then CT scan (48), barium enema (44), followed by gastroscopy (23) and flexible sigmoidoscopy in 15 patients (some patients would have had more than one test requested). After consultation with the patients, tests requested as guided by the GP letter were changed in 67 patients (31%), where 142 colonoscopies, 61 CT scans, 37 barium enemas, 23 flexible sigmoidoscopies and 19 gastroscopies were organised. The referral indication which had tests changed most often was definite palpable rectal mass (67%), while patients referred with definite palpable right-sided abdominal mass had their tests least often changed (9%). A total of 22 patients were found to have colorectal cancers (10%) and 30 patients were diagnosed with polyps (14%). Out of 142 colonoscopies performed, 19 (13%) showed some pathology beyond the sigmoid colon and of the 23 patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy initially, only three went on to have colonoscopy subsequently. During the 6-month period of the study, only five breaches of the waiting time targets were recorded (1 to the 31-day target and 4 to the 62-day target).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients would have had tests changed after a clinical consultation. However, only a small number required further investigations having had a consultation prior to their initial investigations. We conclude that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients should be seen in the clinic first and should not proceed 'straight-to-test'.

Straight to test. Results of a pilot study in a hospital serving an inner city population

OBJECTIVE

The main aims of the study were to determine the frequency with which two-week wait (2ww) referrals for colorectal cancer (CRC) could proceed directly to straight to test (STT), and the potential improvement in time to diagnosis.

METHOD

A telephone interview was attempted in all 2ww referrals not requiring an advocate and under 80 years. Data were assessed according to a test protocol, and where indicated a potential slot for the appropriate investigation was recorded (virtual test). All patients proceeded to clinic, following which differences in time from GP referral to virtual compared with actual requested test, and any discrepancies between virtual and requested tests were analysed.

RESULTS

Between 8th January and 16th February 2007, there were 42 2ww referrals. Twenty-one patients were contacted, of whom 14 were suitable for STT: 13 virtual colonoscopies and one CT scan were booked. Following out-patient consultation, eight colonoscopies; three flexible sigmoidoscopies, one barium enema, and two CT scans were actually booked. There was a difference of 15.5 days between the median times of the virtual and actual test. During this 6-week period a total of nine patients were diagnosed with CRC, of whom three were referred via the 2ww pathway, but none were suitable for STT.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'straight to test' pilot study suggests a potential strategy for reducing the time to diagnosis and therefore first treatment of those identified with CRC, and offers a methodology for individual hospitals to assess their suitability to employ such a strategy.

Assessment of a patient consultation questionnaire-based scoring system for stratification of outpatient risk of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The UK government's fast-track 2-week wait (2WW) rule and colorectal cancer guidelines aimed to detect patients at high risk of having colorectal cancer, but the yield has been poor. A patient consultation questionnaire (PCQ)-based scoring system may be an effective tool for prioritizing colorectal referrals. The aim of this study was to validate the system in a large and ethnically diverse population and to compare it with 2WW referrals.

METHODS

Over a 1-year period, all colorectal referrals (2WW and traditional letters) at nine hospitals in Leicestershire were sent a PCQ to complete and return. A weighted numerical score (WNS), which reflects the patient's risk of having colorectal cancer, was calculated and compared with the hospital diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1422 PCQs returned, 83 patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. The 2WW referrals constituted 35.7 per cent of all referrals. The mean WNS of patients with colorectal cancer was significantly higher than that of the other patients (mean 76.3 versus 48.9 respectively; P < 0.001). For similar cancer detection rates (or sensitivity), the specificity of a WNS cut-off of 70 was significantly better than that of the 2WW system (82.7 versus 66.1 per cent; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The PCQ-based WNS system improves specificity for detecting colorectal cancer, particularly when the WNS exceeds 70.

Validation of the Lower Gastrointestinal Electronic Referral Protocol

Background

Recognition of people presenting to the general practitioner with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer varies considerably, as do the subsequent patterns of referral and treatment. The Lower Gastrointestinal Electronic Referral Protocol (e-RP) was developed to be used alongside the national Choose and Book programme. This paper addresses the validation of the e-RP.

Methods

The e-RP was validated using three datasets: 100 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer, 100 2-week wait (TWW) suspected cancer referrals and 100 routine referrals. The actual destination of referred patients, their clinical diagnosis and referral urgency were compared with destination and referral urgency assigned by the e-RP.

Results

Some 43·0 per cent of patients with colorectal cancer were actually referred through the TWW system and the e-RP successfully upgraded 85·0 per cent of these patients as TWW referrals (Pearson χ2 = 9·76, 1 d.f., P = 0·002). The e-RP also redirected three of four patients with colorectal cancer in routine referrals to TWW clinics. Right-sided cancers were appropriately directed to colonoscopy as the first contact in secondary care or to outpatients for investigation of a palpable mass. Most patients with left-sided cancers were directed to flexible sigmoidoscopy clinics.

Conclusion

A dedicated referral protocol addressing all colorectal symptoms would significantly improve the overall yield of colorectal cancers through the TWW route and reduce delays in patient pathways with ‘straight to test’ in secondary care.