Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data

Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways in primary care: comparative analysis across the International Benchmarking Cancer Partnership

BACKGROUND

International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries.

AIM

To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries.

METHOD

Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care.

RESULTS

Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes.

CONCLUSION

Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care.

METHODS

Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives.

RESULTS

95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to promote greater involvement of patients to support the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care

Background

Safety netting in primary care may help diagnose cancer earlier, but it is unclear what the format and content of an acceptable safety-netting intervention would be. This project aimed to co-design a safety-netting intervention with and for primary care patients and staff.

Aim

This work sought to address how a safety-netting intervention would be implemented in practice; and, if and how a safety-netting intervention would be acceptable to all stakeholders.

Design and setting

Patient representatives, GPs, and nurse practitioners were invited to a series of co-design workshops. Patients who had and had not received a diagnosis of cancer and primary care practices took part in separate focus groups.

Method

Three workshops using creative co-design processes developed the format and content of the intervention prototype. The COM-B Framework underpinned five focus groups to establish views on capability, opportunity, and motivation to use the intervention to assist with prototype refinement.

Results

Workshops and focus groups suggested the intervention format and content should incorporate visual and written communication specifying clear timelines for monitoring symptoms and when to present back; be available in paper and electronic forms linked to existing computer systems; and be able to be delivered within a 10-minute consultation. Intervention use themes included ‘building confidence through partnership’, ‘using familiar and current procedures and systems’, and ‘seeing value’.

Conclusion

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP) — a safety-netting intervention to assist the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care, was successfully co-designed with and for patients and primary care staff.

Pluralistic task shifting for a more timely cancer diagnosis. A grounded theory study from a primary care perspective

OBJECTIVE

To explore how cancer could be diagnosed in a more timely way.

DESIGN

Grounded theory analysis of primary care physicians' free text survey responses to: 'How do you think the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved?'. Secondary analysis of primary care physician interviews, survey responses, literature.

SETTING

Primary care in 20 European Örenäs Research Group countries.

SUBJECTS

Primary care physicians: 1352 survey respondents (2013-2016), 20 Spanish and 7 Swedish interviewees (2015-2019).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Conceptual explanation of how to improve timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

Pluralistic task shifting is a grounded theory of a composite strategy. It includes task sharing - among nurses, physicians, nurse assistants, secretaries, and patients - and changing tasks with cancer screening when appropriate or cancer fast-tracks to accelerate cancer case finding. A pluralistic dialogue culture of comprehensive collaboration and task redistribution is required for effective pluralistic task shifting. Pluralistic task shifting relies on cognitive task shifting, which includes learning more about slow analytic reasoning and fast automatic thinking initiated by pattern recognition; and digital task shifting, which by use of eHealth and telemedicine bridges time and place and improves power symmetry between patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Financial task shifting that involves cost tracking followed by reallocation of funds is necessary for the restructuring and retraining required for successful pluralistic task shifting. A timely diagnosis reduces expensive investigations and waiting times. Also, late-stage cancers are costlier to treat than early-stage cancers. Timing is central to cancer diagnosis: not too early to avoid overdiagnosis, and never too late.

CONCLUSIONS

We present pluralistic task shifting as a conceptual summary of strategies needed to optimise the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Key pointsCancer diagnosis is under-researched in primary care, especially theoretically. Thus, inspired by classic grounded theory, we analysed and conceptualised the field:Pluralistic task shifting is a conceptual explanation of how the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved, with data derived mostly from primary care physicians.This includes task sharing and changing tasks including screening and cancer fast-tracks to accelerate cancer case finding, and requires cognitive task shifting emphasising learning, and digital task shifting involving the use of eHealth and telemedicine.Financial task shifting with cost tracking and reallocation of funds is eventually necessary for successful pluralistic task shifting to happen.

Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop

Background

Missed test‐results and failure to follow‐up test‐results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test‐results management have predominantly focused on clinician‐based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test‐result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care.

Objective

To identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test‐results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis.

Design and participants

Volunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test‐results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de‐identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test‐results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

Results

Consumer‐selected topics for discussion were ‘Transitions of Care’ and ‘Access’. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel ‘Systems Factors’ relating to ‘Emergency Departments’ and the health system, as well as microlevel ‘Patient Factors’ (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the ‘Communication’ (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test‐results ‘Information’ (or lack thereof).

Conclusions

Consumers identified the challenges patients experience with test‐results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety.

Patient or public contribution

Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test‐results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript.

CASNET2: evaluation of an electronic safety netting cancer toolkit for the primary care electronic health record: protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge RCT

INTRODUCTION

Safety-netting in primary care is the best practice in cancer diagnosis, ensuring that patients are followed up until symptoms are explained or have resolved. Currently, clinicians use haphazard manual solutions. The ubiquitous use of electronic health records provides an opportunity to standardise safety-netting practices.A new electronic safety-netting toolkit has been introduced to provide systematic ways to track and follow up patients. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this toolkit, which is embedded in a major primary care clinical system in England:Egerton Medical Information System(EMIS)-Web.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster RCT in 60 general practices within the RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. Groups of 10 practices will be randomised into the active phase at 2-monthly intervals over 12 months. All practices will be activated for at least 2 months. The primary outcome is the primary care interval measured as days between the first recorded symptom of cancer (within the year prior to diagnosis) and the subsequent referral to secondary care. Other outcomes include referrals rates and rates of direct access cancer investigation.Analysis of the clustered stepped-wedge design will model associations using a fixed effect for intervention condition of the cluster at each time step, a fixed effect for time and other covariates, and then include a random effect for practice and for patient to account for correlation between observations from the same centre and from the same participant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the North West-Greater Manchester West National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference 19/NW/0692). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and sent to participating practices. They will be published on the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Care and RCGP RSC websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15913081; Pre-results.

Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs

BACKGROUND

Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy that involves monitoring patients with symptoms possibly indicative of serious illness, such as cancer, until they are resolved. Optimising safety-netting practice in primary care has been proposed to improve quality of care and clinical outcomes. Introducing guidelines is a potential means to achieve this.

AIM

To seek the insight of frontline GPs regarding proposed safety-netting guidelines for suspected cancer in UK primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative interview study with 25 GPs practising in Oxfordshire, UK.

METHOD

Transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically by a multidisciplinary research team using a mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

GPs were supportive of initiatives to optimise safety netting. Guidelines on establishing who has responsibility for follow-up, keeping patient details up to date, and ensuring test result review is conducted by someone with knowledge of cancer guidelines were already being followed. Sharing diagnostic uncertainty and ensuring an up-to-date understanding of guidelines were only partially implemented. Neither informing patients of all (including negative) test results nor ensuring recurrent unexplained symptoms are always flagged and referred were considered feasible. The lack of detail, for example, the expected duration of symptoms, caused some concern. Overall, doubts were expressed about the feasibility of the guidelines given the time, recruitment, and resource challenges faced in UK primary care.

CONCLUSION

GPs expressed general support for safety netting, yet were unconvinced that key elements of the guidelines were feasible, especially in the context of pressures on general practice staffing and time.

Safety netting in routine primary care consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting advice is information shared with a patient or their carer designed to help them identify the need to seek further medical help if their condition fails to improve, changes, or if they have concerns about their health.

AIM

To assess when and how safety-netting advice is delivered in routine GP consultations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was an observational study using 318 recorded GP consultations with adult patients in the UK.

METHOD

A safety-netting coding tool was applied to all consultations. Logistic regression for the presence or absence of safety-netting advice was compared between patient, clinician, and problem variables.

RESULTS

A total of 390 episodes of safety-netting advice were observed in 205/318 (64.5%) consultations for 257/555 (46.3%) problems. Most advice was initiated by the GP (94.9%) and delivered in the treatment planning (52.1%) or closing (31.5%) consultation phases. Specific advice was delivered in almost half (47.2%) of episodes. Safety-netting advice was more likely to be present for problems that were acute (odds ratio [OR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30 to 3.64), assessed first in the consultation (OR 2.94, 95% CI = 1.85 to 4.68) or assessed by GPs aged ≤49 years (OR 2.56, 95% CI = 1.45 to 4.51). Safety-netting advice was documented for only 109/242 (45.0%) problems.

CONCLUSION

GPs appear to commonly give safety-netting advice, but the contingencies or actions required on the patient's part may not always be specific or documented. The likelihood of safety-netting advice being delivered may vary according to characteristics of the problem or the GP. How to assess safety-netting outcomes in terms of patient benefits and harms does warrant further exploration.

Development of a tool for coding safety-netting behaviours in primary care: a mixed-methods study using existing UK consultation recordings

BACKGROUND

Safety netting is recommended in a variety of clinical settings, yet there are no tools to record clinician safety-netting communication behaviours.

AIM

To develop and assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of a coding tool designed to assess safety-netting communication behaviours in primary care consultations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods study using an existing dataset of video-and audio-recorded UK primary care consultations.

METHOD

Key components that should be assessed in a coding tool were identified using the published literature and relevant guidelines. An iterative approach was utilised to continuously refine and generate new codes based on the application to real-life consultations. After the codebook had been generated, it was applied to 35 problems in 24 consultations independently by two coders. IRR scores were then calculated.

RESULTS

The tool allows for the identification and quantification of the key elements of safety-netting advice including: who initiates the advice and at which stage of the consultation; the number of symptoms or conditions the patient is advised to look out for; what action patients should take and how urgently; as well as capturing how patients respond to such advice plus important contextual codes such as the communication of diagnostic uncertainty, the expected time course of an illness, and any follow-up plans. The final tool had substantial levels of IRR with the mean average agreement for the final tool being 88% (κ = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

The authors have developed a novel tool that can reliably code the extent of clinician safety-netting communication behaviours.

How do GPs and patients share the responsibility for cancer safety netting follow-up actions? A qualitative interview study of GPs and patients in Oxfordshire, UK

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' and General Practitioners' (GPs) accounts of how responsibility for follow-up was perceived and shared in their experiences of cancer safety netting occurring within the past 6 months.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through an abductive process, exploring anticipated and emergent themes. Conceptualisations of 'responsibility' were explored by drawing on a transactional to interdependent continuum drawing from the shared decision-making literature.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs and 23 adult patients in Oxfordshire, UK.

RESULTS

The transactional sharing approach involves responsibility being passed from GP to patient. Patients expected and were willing to accept responsibility in this way as long as they received clear guidance from their GP and had capacity. In interdependent sharing, GPs principally aimed to reach consensus and share responsibility with the patient by explaining their rationale, uncertainty or by stressing the potential seriousness of the situation. Patients sharing this responsibility could be put at risk if no follow-up or timeframe was suggested, they had inadequate information, were falsely reassured or their concerns were not addressed at re-consultation.

CONCLUSION

GPs and patients exchange and share responsibility using a combination of transactional and interdependent styles, tailoring information based on patient characteristics and each party's level of concern. Clear action plans (written where necessary) at the end of every consultation would help patients decide when to re-consult. Further research should investigate how responsibility is shared within and outside the consultation, within primary care teams and with specialist services.

Exploring public attitudes towards the new Faster Diagnosis Standard for cancer: a focus group study with the UK public

Background

The Faster Diagnosis Standard (FDS) is to be introduced in England in 2020. This standard is a new policy in which patients should have cancer ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days of referral.

Aim

To explore public attitudes towards the FDS within the context of their recent referral experiences.

Design and setting

Four 90-minute focus groups (two in Guildford, two in Bradford).

Method

Participants aged >50 years without a current cancer diagnosis (N = 29), who had completed certain diagnostic tests, for example, ultrasound, and received results within the last 6 months were recruited. Age, education, and sex were evenly distributed across groups through purposive sampling.

Results

The largest cause of concern was the waiting process for obtaining test results. Most had experienced swift referral, and it was difficult for participants to understand how the new standard could impact upon time progressing through the system. Responsibility for meeting the standard was also a concern: participants did not see their own behaviours as a form of involvement. The GP’s role was conceptualised by patients as communicating about their referral, establishing patients’ preferences for information, and continued involvement at each stage of the referral process. The standard legitimised chasing for test results, but 28 days was considered too long.

Conclusion

Patients should be asked what they would like to know about their referral. GPs should be more transparent about the referral process and the potential for a lack of clarity around next steps.

Association between GPs' suspicion of cancer and patients' usual consultation pattern in primary care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patients who rarely consult a GP in the 19-36 months before a cancer diagnosis have more advanced cancer at diagnosis and a worse prognosis. To ensure more timely diagnosis of cancer, the GP should suspect cancer as early as possible.

AIM

To investigate the GP's suspicion of cancer according to the patient with cancer's usual consultation pattern in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study based on survey data from general practice of 3985 Danish patients diagnosed with cancer from May 2010 to August 2010, and linked to national register data.

METHOD

Using logistic regression analysis with restricted cubic splines, the odds ratio (OR) of the GP to suspect cancer as a function of the patient's number of face-to-face consultations with the GP in the 19-36 months before a cancer diagnosis was estimated.

RESULTS

GPs' cancer suspicion decreased with higher usual consultation frequency in general practice. A significant decreasing trend in ORs for cancer suspicion was seen across usual consultation categories overall (P<0.001) and for each sex (males: P<0.05; females: P<0.05). GPs' cancer suspicion was lower in patients aged <55 years in both rare and frequent attenders compared with average attenders.

CONCLUSION

GPs suspect cancer more often in rare attenders ≥55 years. GPs' cancer suspicion was lower in younger patients (<55 years), in both rare and frequent attenders. GPs should be aware of possible missed opportunities for cancer diagnosis in young attenders and use safety netting to reduce the risk of missing a cancer diagnosis.

GPs' understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations: a qualitative study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care.

AIM

To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care.

METHOD

In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison.

RESULTS

GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues' practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting.

CONCLUSION

GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload.