Variation and statistical reliability of publicly reported primary care diagnostic activity indicators for cancer: a cross-sectional ecological study of routine data

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.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process

BACKGROUND

The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care.

METHODS

We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings.

RESULTS

We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Stability of hospital quality indicators over time: A multi-year observational study of German hospital data

BACKGROUND

Retrospective hospital quality indicators can only be useful if they are trustworthy signals of current or future quality. Despite extensive longitudinal quality indicator data and many hospital quality public reporting initiatives, research on quality indicator stability over time is scarce and skepticism about their usefulness widespread.

OBJECTIVE

Based on aggregated, widely available hospital-level quality indicators, this paper sought to determine whether quality indicators are stable over time. Implications for health policy were drawn and the limited methodological foundation for stability assessments of hospital-level quality indicators enhanced.

METHODS

Two longitudinal datasets (self-reported and routine data), including all hospitals in Germany and covering the period from 2004 to 2017, were analysed. A logistic regression using Generalized Estimating Equations, a time-dependent, graphic quintile representation of risk-adjusted rates and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used.

RESULTS

For a total of eight German quality indicators significant stability over time was demonstrated. The probability of remaining in the best quality cluster in the future across all hospitals reached from 46.9% (CI: 42.4-51.6%) for hip replacement reoperations to 80.4% (CI: 76.4-83.8%) for decubitus. Furthermore, graphical descriptive analysis showed that the difference in adverse event rates for the 20% top performing compared to the 20% worst performing hospitals in the two following years is on average between 30% for stroke and AMI and 79% for decubitus. Stability over time has been shown to vary strongly between indicators and treatment areas.

CONCLUSION

Quality indicators were found to have sufficient stability over time for public reporting. Potentially, increasing case volumes per hospital, centralisation of medical services and minimum-quantity regulations may lead to more stable and reliable quality of care indicators. Finally, more robust policy interventions such as outcome-based payment, should only be applied to outcome indicators with a higher level of stability over time. This should be subject to future research.

Ethnic inequalities in routes to diagnosis of cancer: a population-based UK cohort study

BACKGROUND

UK Asian and Black ethnic groups have poorer outcomes for some cancers and are less likely to report a positive care experience than their White counterparts. This study investigated ethnic differences in the route to diagnosis (RTD) to identify areas in patients' cancer journeys where inequalities lie, and targeted intervention might have optimum impact.

METHODS

We analysed data of 243,825 patients with 10 cancers (2006-2016) from the RTD project linked to primary care data. Crude and adjusted proportions of patients diagnosed via six routes (emergency, elective GP referral, two-week wait (2WW), screen-detected, hospital, and Other routes) were calculated by ethnicity. Adjusted odds ratios (including two-way interactions between cancer and age, sex, IMD, and ethnicity) determined cancer-specific differences in RTD by ethnicity.

RESULTS

Across the 10 cancers studied, most patients were diagnosed via 2WW (36.4%), elective GP referral (23.2%), emergency (18.2%), hospital routes (10.3%), and screening (8.61%). Patients of Other ethnic group had the highest proportion of diagnosis via the emergency route, followed by White patients. Asian and Black group were more likely to be GP-referred, with the Black and Mixed groups also more likely to follow the 2WW route. However, there were notable cancer-specific differences in the RTD by ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that, where inequalities exist, the adverse cancer outcomes among Asian and Black patients are unlikely to be arising solely from a poorer diagnostic process.

Concordance with urgent referral guidelines in patients presenting with any of six 'alarm' features of possible cancer: a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care records

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines advise GPs in England which patients warrant an urgent referral for suspected cancer. This study assessed how often GPs follow the guidelines, whether certain patients are less likely to be referred, and how many patients were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year of non-referral.

METHODS

We used linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) and cancer registration data. Patients presenting with haematuria, breast lump, dysphagia, iron-deficiency anaemia, post-menopausal or rectal bleeding for the first time during 2014-2015 were included (for ages where guidelines recommend urgent referral). Logistic regression was used to investigate whether receiving a referral was associated with feature type and patient characteristics. Cancer incidence (based on recorded diagnoses in cancer registry data within 1 year of presentation) was compared between those receiving and those not receiving referrals.

RESULTS

48 715 patients were included, of which 40% (n=19 670) received an urgent referral within 14 days of presentation, varying by feature from 17% (dysphagia) to 68% (breast lump). Young patients (18-24 vs 55-64 years; adjusted OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (4 vs 0 comorbidities; adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, p<0.001) were less likely to receive a referral. Associations between patient characteristics and referrals differed across features: among patients presenting with anaemia, breast lump or haematuria, those with multi-morbidity, and additionally for breast lump, more deprived patients were less likely to receive a referral. Of 29 045 patients not receiving a referral, 3.6% (1047) were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year, ranging from 2.8% for rectal bleeding to 9.5% for anaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline recommendations for action are not followed for the majority of patients presenting with common possible cancer features. A significant number of these patients developed cancer within 1 year of their consultation, indicating scope for improvement in the diagnostic process.

Do presenting symptoms, use of pre-diagnostic endoscopy and risk of emergency cancer diagnosis vary by comorbidity burden and type in patients with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often have pre-existing comorbidities, which can influence timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We examined symptoms, investigations and emergency presentation (EP) risk among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients by comorbidity status.

METHODS

Using linked cancer registration, primary care and hospital records of 4836 CRC patients (2011-2015), and multivariate quantile and logistic regression, we examined variations in specialist investigations, diagnostic intervals and EP risk.

RESULTS

Among colon cancer patients, 46% had at least one pre-existing hospital-recorded comorbidity, most frequently cardiovascular disease (CVD, 18%). Comorbid versus non-comorbid cancer patients more frequently had records of anaemia (43% vs 38%), less frequently rectal bleeding/change in bowel habit (20% vs 27%), and longer intervals from symptom-to-first relevant test (median 136 vs 74 days). Comorbid patients were less likely investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, independently of symptoms (adjusted OR = 0.7[0.6, 0.9] for Charlson comorbidity score 1-2 and OR = 0.5 [0.4-0.7] for score 3+ versus 0. EP risk increased with comorbidity score 0, 1, 2, 3+: 23%, 35%, 33%, 47%; adjusted OR = 1.8 [1.4, 2.2]; 1.7 [1.3, 2.3]; 3.0 [2.3, 4.0]) and for patients with CVD (adjusted OR = 2.0 [1.5, 2.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid individuals with as-yet-undiagnosed CRC often present with general rather than localising symptoms and are less likely promptly investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Comorbidity is a risk factor for diagnostic delay and has potential, additionally to symptoms, as risk-stratifier for prioritising patients needing prompt assessment to reduce EP.

Role of primary care physician factors on diagnostic testing and referral decisions for symptoms of possible cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. 'Gut feeling' predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or 'gut feeling', PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD420191560515.

Associations between general practice characteristics and chest X-ray rate: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Chest X-ray (CXR) is the first-line test for lung cancer in many settings. Previous research has suggested that higher utilisation of CXR is associated with improved outcomes.

AIM

To explore the associations between characteristics of general practices and frequency of investigation with CXR.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study of English general practices.

METHOD

A database was constructed of English general practices containing number of CXRs requested and data on practices for 2018, including patient and staff demographics, smoking prevalence, deprivation, and patient satisfaction indicators. Mixed-effects Poisson modelling was used to account for variation because of chance and to estimate the amount of remaining variation that could be attributed to practice and population characteristics.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in GP CXR rates (median 34 per 1000 patients, interquartile range 26-43). Only 18% of between-practice variance in CXR rate was accounted for by recorded characteristics. Higher practice scores for continuity and communication skills, and higher proportions of smokers, Asian and mixed ethnic groups, and patients aged >65 years were associated with increased CXR rates. Higher patient satisfaction scores for access and greater proportions of male patients and patients of Black ethnicity were associated with lower CXR rates.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation was found in CXR rates beyond that expected by chance, which could not be accounted for by practices' recorded characteristics. As other research has indicated that increasing CXR rates can lead to earlier detection, supporting practices that currently investigate infrequently could be an effective strategy to improve lung cancer outcomes.

Factors associated with variation in emergency diagnoses of cancer at general practice level in England

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients diagnosed following an emergency presentation have poorer outcomes. We explore whether practice characteristics are associated with differences in the proportion of emergency presentations.

METHODS

Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the relationships between 2017-18 emergency cancer presentations at practice level in England and access and continuity in primary care, trust in healthcare professionals, 2-week-wait (2WW) referrals, quality and outcomes framework (QOF) achievements and socio-demographic factors (age, gender and deprivation).

RESULTS

Our analysis using comprehensive nationwide data found that the following practice level factors have significant associations with a lower proportion of emergency diagnosis of cancer: increased trust and confidence in the practice healthcare professionals; higher 2WW referral and conversion rate; higher total practice QOF score and higher satisfaction with appointment times or higher proportion able to see preferred GP. Our results also show that practices in more deprived areas are significantly associated with a higher proportion of emergency diagnoses of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional cancer networks should focus their efforts in increasing both the quantity and appropriateness of 2WW referrals from primary care. In addition, primary care clinicians should be supported to undertake high quality consultations, thus building trust with patients and ensuring continuity of care.

Quality-of-care comparison of stroke: The reliability and robustness of ranking by process or outcome measures

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Discussion on the most rational types of performance measures for care quality comparisons has received increasing attention. The important consideration is to what extent will the measure detect a genuine difference in the underlying quality. In this study, we aimed to compare the ranking of hospitals on the performance of individual indicators, composite scores (CS, that were calculated by the method of opportunity-based score on patient-level), and in-hospital outcome of acute ischemic stroke across hospitals, and determined the reliability and robustness of the three types of ranking.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 15,090 patients diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke who were treated at 184 large tertiary hospitals from January 2014 to May 2017. We ranked the hospital effects of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and CS and independence (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) at discharge based on fixed- and random-effects regression models before and after case-mix adjustment. We assessed the time-robustness of the hospital effects and calculated the rankability by relating the uncertainty within the hospital and the total hospital variation "beyond chance."

RESULTS

After case-mix and reliability adjustment, we estimated that 84.03% of the variance in CS between hospitals was due to true quality differences. The uncertainty within hospitals caused a poor (49.51%) rankability in rt-PA and moderate rankability (63.34%) in independence at discharge. The hospital rankings of CS were more robust across years compared with rt-PA and independence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicated that CS is the optimal measure to indicate the quality-of-care variation of acute ischemic stroke between hospitals.

Cancer detection via primary care urgent referral and association with practice characteristics: a retrospective cross-sectional study in England from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019

Background

There is substantial variation in the use of urgent suspected cancer referral (2-week wait [2WW]) between practices.

Aim

To examine the change in use of 2WW referrals in England over 10 years (2009/2010 to 2018/2019) and the practice and population factors associated with cancer detection.

Design and setting

Retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practices and their 2WW referral and Cancer Waiting Times database detection data (all cancers other than non-melanoma skin cancers) from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019.

Method

A retrospective study conducted using descriptive statistics of changes over 10 years in 2WW referral data. Yearly linear regression models were used to determine the association between cancer detection rates and quintiles of practice and population characteristics. Predicted cancer detection rates were calculated, as well as the difference between lowest to highest quintiles.

Results

Over the 10 years studied there were 14.89 million 2WW referrals (2.24 million in 2018/2019), and 2.68 million new cancer diagnoses, of which 1.26 million were detected following 2WW. The detection rate increased from 41% to 52% over the time period. In 2018/2019 an additional 66 172 cancers were detected via 2WW compared with 2009/2010. Higher cancer detection via 2WW referrals was associated with larger practices and those with younger GPs. From 2016/2017 onwards more deprived practice populations were associated with decreased cancer detection.

Conclusion

From 2009/2010 to 2018/2019 2WW referrals increased on average by 10% year on year. The most consistent association with higher cancer detection was found for larger practices and those with younger GPs, though these differences became attenuated over time. The more recent association between increased practice deprivation and lower cancer detection is a cause for concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant impacts on 2WW referral activity and the impact on patient outcomes will need to be studied.

Association of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings With Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Quality of Care

Importance

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which disproportionately enroll racial/ethnic minorities and persons with socioeconomic disadvantage, receive bonus payments on the basis of overall performance on a 5-star rating scale. The association between plans' overall quality and disparities in quality is not well understood.

Objective

To examine the association between MA star ratings and disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities and enrollees with lower income and educational attainment.

Design Setting and Participants

This cross-sectional study included 1 578 564 MA enrollees from 454 contracts across the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Data analyses were conducted between June 2019 and June 2020.

Exposures

Self-reported race and ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (SES) (defined by low income or less than a high school education) vs high SES (neither low income nor low educational attainment).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Performance on 22 measures of quality and satisfaction determined at the individual enrollee level, aggregated into simulated star ratings (scale, 2-5) stratified by SES and race/ethnicity.

Results

A total of 1 578 564 enrollees were included in this analysis (55.8% female; mean [SD] age, 71.4 [11.3] years; 65.8% White; 12.3% Black; 14.6% Hispanic). Enrollees with low SES had simulated stratified star ratings 0.5 stars lower (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 stars) than individuals with high SES in the same contract. Black and Hispanic enrollees had simulated star ratings that were 0.3 stars (95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars) and 0.1 stars (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.2 stars) lower than White enrollees within the same contracts. Black enrollees had a 0.4-star lower rating (95% CI, 0.1-0.7 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and a no statistical difference in 2.0- to 2.5-star-rated contracts (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.7 stars). Hispanic enrollees had a 0.6-star lower simulated rating (95% CI, 0.2-1.0 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and no statistical difference in 2- to 2.5-star contracts (difference, -0.01 stars; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4 stars). There was low correlation between simulated ratings for enrollees of low SES and high SES (difference, 0.2 stars; 95% CI, 0.03-0.4 stars) and between simulated ratings for White and Black enrollees (difference, 0.4 stars; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5 stars) and White and Hispanic enrollees (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars). As the proportion of Black and Hispanic enrollees increased in a contract, racial/ethnic disparities in ratings decreased.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, simulated MA star ratings were only weakly correlated with those for enrollees of low SES in the same contract, and contracts with higher star ratings had larger disparities in quality. Measures of equity in MA plans' quality of care may be needed.

Combined Serum DKK3 and Circulating CD133 Cells as Prognostic Biomarkers for Ovarian Cancer Patients

Introduction

Ovarian cancer (OV) can seriously endanger women’s physical and mental health. Serum DKK3 has been used for the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer. However, the specificity of antibodies may lead to errors in the detection of plasma protein.

Methods

Circulating CD133⁺ cells from blood samples were separated by magnetic microbeads. Serum DKK3 levels were determined by ELISA. The roles of DKK3 in OV cells were analyzed in vitro.

Results

In this study, we found that the CD133⁺ subpopulation in circulating tumor cells can indicate the overall survival rate of OV patients. Serum DKK3 levels were negatively correlated with the number of circulating CD133⁺ cells in OV patients. In addition, we confirmed the inhibitory effect of recombinant human DKK3 (rhDKK3) on OV cells via reversal of the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) process.

Conclusion

Both serum DKK3 levels and circulating CD133⁺ tumor cells can be used as prognostic markers for patients with ovarian cancer.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Association between use of urgent suspected cancer referral and mortality and stage at diagnosis: a 5-year national cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is considerable variation between GP practices in England in their use of urgent referral pathways for suspected cancer.

AIM

To determine the association between practice use of urgent referral and cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer patient mortality, for all cancers and the most common types of cancer (colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate).

DESIGN AND SETTING

National cohort study of 1.4 million patients diagnosed with cancer in England between 2011 and 2015.

METHOD

The cohort was stratified according to quintiles of urgent referral metrics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to quantify risk of death, and logistic regression to calculate odds of late-stage (III/IV) versus early-stage (I/II) cancers in relation to referral quintiles and cancer type.

RESULTS

Cancer patients from the highest referring practices had a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 0.97), with similar patterns for individual cancers: colorectal (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.93 to 0.97); lung (HR = 0.95; CI = 0.94 to 0.97); breast (HR = 0.96; CI = 0.93 to 0.99); and prostate (HR = 0.88; CI = 0.85 to 0.91). Similarly, for cancer patients from these practices, there were lower odds of late-stage diagnosis for individual cancer types, except for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Higher practice use of referrals for suspected cancer is associated with lower mortality for the four most common types of cancer. A significant proportion of the observed mortality reduction is likely due to earlier stage at diagnosis, except for colorectal cancer. This adds to evidence supporting the lowering of referral thresholds and consequent increased use of urgent referral for suspected cancer.

Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study

BACKGROUND

Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors.

RESULTS

The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

Contribution of primary care organisation and specialist care provider to variation in GP referrals for suspected cancer: ecological analysis of national data

OBJECTIVES

To examine how much of the variation between general practices in referral rates and cancer detection rates is attributable to local health services rather than the practices or their populations.

DESIGN

Ecological analysis of national data on fast-track referrals for suspected cancer from general practices. Data were analysed at the levels of general practice, primary care organisation (Clinical Commissioning Group) and secondary care provider (Acute Hospital Trust) level. Analysis of variation in detection rate was by multilevel linear and Poisson regression.

SETTING

6379 group practices with data relating to more than 50 cancer cases diagnosed over the 5 years from 2013 to 2017.

OUTCOMES

Proportion of observed variation attributable to primary and secondary care organisations in standardised fast-track referral rate and in cancer detection rate before and after adjustment for practice characteristics.

RESULTS

Primary care organisation accounted for 21% of the variation between general practices in the standardised fast-track referral rate and 42% of the unadjusted variation in cancer detection rate. After adjusting for standardised fast-track referral rate, primary care organisation accounted for 31% of the variation in cancer detection rate (compared with 18% accounted for by practice characteristics). In areas where a hospital trust was the main provider for multiple primary care organisations, hospital trusts accounted for the majority of the variation attributable to local health services (between 63% and 69%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale finding that a substantial proportion of the variation between general practitioner practices in referrals is attributable to their local healthcare systems. Efforts to reduce variation need to focus not just on individual practices but on local diagnostic service provision and culture at the interface of primary and secondary care.

Reliability of hospital scores for the Cancer Patient Experience Survey: analysis of publicly reported patient survey data

OBJECTIVES

To assess the degree to which variations in publicly reported hospital scores arising from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) are subject to chance.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of publically reported data.

SETTING

English National Health Service hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

72 756 patients who were recently treated for cancer in one of 146 hospitals and responded to the 2016 English CPES.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Spearman-Brown reliability of hospital scores on 51 evaluative questions regarding cancer care.

RESULTS

Hospitals varied in respondent sample size with a median hospital sample size of 419 responses (range 31-1972). There were some hospitals with generally highly reliable scores across most questions, whereas other hospitals had generally unreliable scores (the median reliability of question scores within individual hospitals varied between 0.11 and 0.86). Similarly, there were some questions with generally high reliability across most hospitals, whereas other questions had generally low reliability. Of the 7377 individual hospital scores publically reported (146 hospitals by 51 questions, minus 69 suppressed scores), only 34% reached a reliability of 0.7, the minimum generally considered to be useful. In order for 80% of the individual hospital scores to reach a reliability of 0.7, some hospitals would require a fourfold increase in number of respondents; although in a few other hospitals sample sizes could be reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The English Patient Experience Survey represents a globally unique source for understanding experience of a patient with cancer; but in its present form, it is not reliable for high stakes comparisons of the performance of different hospitals. Revised sampling strategies and survey questions could help increase the reliability of hospital scores, and thus make the survey fit for use in performance comparisons.

Ranking hospital performance based on individual indicators: can we increase reliability by creating composite indicators?

BACKGROUND

Report cards on the health care system increasingly report provider-specific performance on indicators that measure the quality of health care delivered. A natural reaction to the publishing of hospital-specific performance on a given indicator is to create 'league tables' that rank hospitals according to their performance. However, many indicators have been shown to have low to moderate rankability, meaning that they cannot be used to accurately rank hospitals. Our objective was to define conditions for improving the ability to rank hospitals by combining several binary indicators with low to moderate rankability.

METHODS

Monte Carlo simulations to examine the rankability of composite ordinal indicators created by pooling three binary indicators with low to moderate rankability. We considered scenarios in which the prevalences of the three binary indicators were 0.05, 0.10, and 0.25 and the within-hospital correlation between these indicators varied between - 0.25 and 0.90.

RESULTS

Creation of an ordinal indicator with high rankability was possible when the three component binary indicators were strongly correlated with one another (the within-hospital correlation in indicators was at least 0.5). When the binary indicators were independent or weakly correlated with one another (the within-hospital correlation in indicators was less than 0.5), the rankability of the composite ordinal indicator was often less than at least one of its binary components. The rankability of the composite indicator was most affected by the rankability of the most prevalent indicator and the magnitude of the within-hospital correlation between the indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooling highly-correlated binary indicators can result in a composite ordinal indicator with high rankability. Otherwise, the composite ordinal indicator may have lower rankability than some of its constituent components. It is recommended that binary indicators be combined to increase rankability only if they represent the same concept of quality of care.

Availability and use of cancer decision-support tools: a cross-sectional survey of UK primary care

Background

Decision-support tools quantify the risk of undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic patients, and may help GPs when making referrals.

Aim

To quantify the availability and use of cancer decision-support tools (QCancer^® and risk assessment tools) and to explore the association between tool availability and 2-week-wait (2WW) referrals for suspected cancer.

Design and setting

A cross-sectional postal survey in UK primary care.

Methods

Out of 975 UK randomly selected general practices, 4600 GPs and registrars were invited to participate. Outcome measures included the proportions of UK general practices where cancer decision-support tools are available and at least one GP uses the tool. Weighted least-squares linear regression with robust errors tested the association between tool availability and number of 2WW referrals, adjusting for practice size, sex, age, and Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Results

In total, 476 GPs in 227 practices responded (response rates: practitioner, 10.3%; practice, 23.3%). At the practice level, 83/227 (36.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.3 to 43.1) practices had at least one GP or registrar with access to cancer decision-support tools. Tools were available and likely to be used in 38/227 (16.7%, 95% CI = 12.1 to 22.2) practices. In subgroup analyses of 172 English practices, there was no difference in mean 2WW referral rate between practices with tools and those without (mean adjusted difference in referrals per 100 000: 3.1, 95% CI = −5.5 to 11.7).

Conclusion

This is the first survey of cancer decision-support tool availability and use. It suggests that the tools are an underused resource in the UK. Given the cost of cancer investigation, a randomised controlled trial of such clinical decision-support aids would be appropriate.

Towards improved health service quality in Tanzania: appropriateness of an electronic tool to assess quality of primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

Progress in health service quality is vital to reach the target of Universal Health Coverage. However, in order to improve quality, it must be measured, and the assessment results must be actionable. We analyzed an electronic tool, which was developed to assess and monitor the quality of primary healthcare in Tanzania in the context of routine supportive supervision. The electronic assessment tool focused on areas in which improvements are most effective in order to suit its purpose of routinely steering improvement measures at local level.

METHODS

Due to the lack of standards regarding how to best measure quality of care, we used a range of different quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the appropriateness of the quality assessment tool. The quantitative methods included descriptive statistics, linear regression models, and factor analysis; the qualitative methods in-depth interviews and observations.

RESULTS

Quantitative and qualitative results were overlapping and consistent. Robustness checks confirmed the tool's ability to assign scores to health facilities and revealed the usefulness of grouping indicators into different quality dimensions. Focusing the quality assessment on processes and structural adequacy of healthcare was an appropriate approach for the assessment's intended purpose, and a unique key feature of the electronic assessment tool. The findings underpinned the accuracy of the assessment tool to measure and monitor quality of primary healthcare for the purpose of routinely steering improvement measures at local level. This was true for different level and owner categories of primary healthcare facilities in Tanzania.

CONCLUSION

The electronic assessment tool demonstrated a feasible option for routine quality measures of primary healthcare in Tanzania. The findings, combined with the more operational results of companion papers, created a solid foundation for an approach that could lastingly improve services for patients attending primary healthcare. However, the results also revealed that the use of the electronic assessment tool outside its intended purpose, for example for performance-based payment schemes, accreditation and other systematic evaluations of healthcare quality, should be considered carefully because of the risk of bias, adverse effects and corruption.

Trends in lung cancer emergency presentation in England, 2006-2013: is there a pattern by general practice?

BACKGROUND

Emergency presentations (EP) represent over a third of all lung cancer admissions in England. Such presentations usually reflect late stage disease and are associated with poor survival. General practitioners (GPs) act as gate-keepers to secondary care and so we sought to understand the association between GP practice characteristics and lung cancer EP.

METHODS

Data on general practice characteristics were extracted for all practices in England from the Quality Outcomes Framework, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the GP Patient Survey, the Cancer Commissioning Toolkit and the area deprivation score for each practice. After linking these data to lung cancer patient registrations in 2006-2013, we explored trends in three types of EP, patient-led, GP-led and 'other', by general practice characteristics and by socio-demographic characteristics of patients.

RESULTS

Overall proportions of lung cancer EP decreased from 37.9% in 2006 to 34.3% in 2013. Proportions of GP-led EP nearly halved during this period, from 28.3 to 16.3%, whilst patient-led emergency presentations rose from 62.1 to 66.7%. When focusing on practice-specific levels of EP, 14% of general practices had higher than expected proportions of EP at least once in 2006-13, but there was no evidence of clustering of patients within practice, meaning that none of the practice characteristics examined explained differing proportions of EP by practice.

CONCLUSION

We found that the high proportion of lung cancer EP is not the result of a few practices with very abnormal patterns of EP, but of a large number of practices susceptible to reaching high proportions of EP. This suggests a system-wide issue, rather than problems with specific practices. High proportions of lung cancer EP are mainly the result of patient-initiated attendances in A&E. Our results demonstrate that interventions to encourage patients not to bypass primary care must be system wide rather than targeted at specific practices.

Missing data and chance variation in public reporting of cancer stage at diagnosis: Cross-sectional analysis of population-based data in England

BACKGROUND

The percentage of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage is reported publicly for geographically-defined populations corresponding to healthcare commissioning organisations in England, and linked to pay-for-performance targets. Given that stage is incompletely recorded, we investigated the extent to which this indicator reflects underlying organisational differences rather than differences in stage completeness and chance variation.

METHODS

We used population-based data on patients diagnosed with one of ten cancer sites in 2013 (bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, prostate, renal, NHL, and melanoma). We assessed the degree of bias in CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) indicators introduced by missing-is-late and complete-case specifications compared with an imputed 'gold standard'. We estimated the Spearman-Brown (organisation-level) reliability of the complete-case specification. We assessed probable misclassification rates against current pay-for-performance targets.

RESULTS

Under the missing-is-late approach, bias in estimated CCG percentage of tumours diagnosed at an early stage ranged from -2 to -30 percentage points, while bias under the complete-case approach ranged from -2 to +7 percentage points. Using an annual reporting period, indicators based on the least biased complete-case approach would have poor reliability, misclassifying 27/209 (13%) CCGs against a pay-for-performance target in current use; only half (53%) of CCGs apparently exceeding the target would be correctly classified in terms of their underlying performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Current public reporting schemes for cancer stage at diagnosis in England should use a complete-case specification (i.e. the number of staged cases forming the denominator) and be based on three-year reporting periods. Early stage indicators for the studied geographies should not be used in pay-for-performance schemes.

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

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.