Changing trends in the management of colorectal cancers and its impact on cancer waiting times

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the differences in the presentation, management and waiting times for new colorectal cancer (CRC) patients over 5 years in a single metropolitan cancer centre. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of new patients with CRC presenting in the years 1998 and 2003. The groups were compared for referral type, Dukes' stage, site, cancer waiting times and primary treatment. RESULTS: There were 72 new patients in 1998 and 77 in 2003. In 1998 33% were seen urgently and 28% as emergencies whereas in 2003 55% of patients were seen as urgent or target wait patients and 16% as emergencies. The 2-week target for urgent referrals was met in 50% of cases in 1998 and 90% in 2003. In 2003 a higher proportion of patients received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. Stage at diagnosis was similar in both groups, except stage 'D' which was 21% in 1998 and only 12% in 2003. The 31-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target from decision to treat to first treatment would have been met in 81% of cases in 1998 and 79% in 2003. The 62-day overall CWT target from referral to first treatment for urgent GP referrals would have been met in 46% of cases in 1998 and 57% in 2003. CONCLUSION: More CRC patients were referred urgently in 2003. Most, but not all of these were referred as target waits. The time taken for the patient's journey did not improve between the two cohorts, possibly in part, because more complex treatments are now provided. Further work and perhaps new thinking are needed in order to achieve Cancer Waiting Time targets.     

Outcomes in 2748 patients referred to a colorectal two-week rule clinic

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 3-year outcomes of a nurse-led, one-stop, 2-week rule (TWR) clinic for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) in a large teaching hospital. METHOD: Data were collected prospectively from January 2002 to December 2004. In total, 2748 patients were seen over the 3-year period. The ratio of male:female subjects was 1190:1558 (43%:57%). Median age at presentation was 66 years (range 17-96). RESULTS: A total of 1363 (49.6%) nonconforming referrals were made; 1300 patients (47.3%) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy during their initial assessment in clinic; 1439 patients (52.4%) underwent a barium enema during the course of their investigation; 2503 patients (91.1%) were seen within 14 working days. The median overall wait for the initial clinic appointment was 10 days. The annual number of patients seen was similar over the 3-year period. A total of 174 cancers (6.3%) were identified which accounted for 36.4% of all CRCs diagnosed during the study period. Nineteen cancers presented in the nonconforming group (1.6% of all non-conforming patients). Rectal tumours accounted for 59.8% (n = 104) of all cancers diagnosed while right-sided tumours accounted for only 10.9% (n = 19). Advanced tumours accounted for 73.0% (n = 127) of the total; 133 (76.4%) cancer patients underwent some form of surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: A specialist nurse-led, one-stop TWR clinic for suspected colorectal cancer is sustainable and can be run successfully with over 90% of referrals seen within the targeted time period. The proportion of non-conforming referrals was high and a large number of advanced and unstaged tumours was observed. Low numbers of proximal tumours were detected.     

The two week referral for colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis

Objective The two‐week referral (TWR) system was introduced in July 2000 to address the delays in referral, diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and lessen the associated psychological morbidity of prolonged waiting. General practitioners complete a proforma outlining ‘high‐risk’ criteria for CRC to ensure an urgent referral within 14 days. The aim of the study was to analyse the TWR process and the proforma criteria. Patients and methods One hundred and forty‐nine two‐week referral proforma were retrospectively reviewed between January and August 2001. The waiting times and proforma data, together with investigations performed and diagnoses made were gathered for 144 patients. Three did not attend clinic and two sets of notes were missing. Results Ninety‐six percent of patients (n = 144) were two week compliant and 14 CRC (10%) were diagnosed. The most common referral symptom was a recent change in bowel habit (36.6%) but specificity for all criteria was low. The highest diagnostic yield was a palpable abdominal or rectal mass where 16.7% had CRC and iron deficiency anaemia had high sensitivity (90%) for surgical pathology. Per rectum examination and haemoglobin analysis by general practitioners was infrequently performed. Discussion Our study has shown that CRC is difficult to diagnose by history and examination alone with a 10% detection rate. CRC incidence in TWR may be improved by primary care through routine rectal examinations, increased detection of iron deficiency anaemia and public education to reduce presentation via other referral routes. Further studies are needed to address these issues.     

Repeat 2‐week wait referrals for colorectal cancer

Aim The inappropriate use of the ‘2‐week wait’ pathway for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC2ww) may overload urgent clinics and delay the assessment and investigation of other patients. Those who have been previously referred and investigated for suspected colorectal cancer may present one group that does not warrant repeat urgent referral. This paper aims to identify the incidence and diagnostic yield of repeat CRC2ww referrals. Method All CRC2ww patients referred to our unit over a 4‐year period were identified retrospectively. Referral indication, outcome and instances of repeat referral were identified from multidisciplinary team, endoscopy and imaging databases. Results In all, 2735 CRC2ww referrals were made over the study period. Of these, 122 were repeated CRC2ww referrals, with the incidence increasing from 2% in 2008 to 6% in 2010 (P = 0.0006). The median time to repeat referral was 1070 days. After initial referral 267 cancers were detected, including 212 colorectal cancers. The diagnostic yield was lower but not significantly so after repeated referral (six cancers) compared with initial referral (5%vs 10%, P = 0.07). Conclusion The incidence of repeat referral is low but the diagnostic yield is not insignificant. Exclusion of these patients from urgent assessment and investigation will not significantly reduce workload and may risk missing some patients with cancer.     

Iron deficiency anaemia and delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Aim The extent to which different referral pathways following a primary care diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) are associated with delay in diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) was determined. Method Eligible patients aged 40 or more years, with IDA diagnosed in primary care, and a subsequent diagnosis of CRC, were studied retrospectively. Referral pathways were identified using the specialty of first recorded GP referral following IDA diagnosis. Differences in time to diagnosis of CRC were assessed by referral specialty. Differences in the proportion of cases referred before and after the re‐issue of the NICE urgent referral guidelines for suspected lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancer were also assessed. Results Of 628 882 eligible patients, 3.1% (n = 19 349) were diagnosed with IDA during the study period; 3.0% (n = 578) were subsequently diagnosed with CRC. Two hundred and fifty‐nine (44.8%) patients had no recorded referral or a referral unrelated to anaemia or the GI tract. Only 35% (n = 201) of patients were referred to a relevant specialty. Median time to CRC diagnosis ranged from 2.5 months (referral to a relevant surgical specialty) to 31.9 months (haematology). Time to diagnosis was longer in patients referred to a medical compared with a relevant surgical specialty (P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in time to CRC diagnosis before and after the NICE guidelines were re‐issued in 2005. Conclusion Significant differences exist between referral specialties in time to CRC diagnosis following a primary care diagnosis of IDA. Despite NICE referral recommendations, a significant proportion of patients are still not managed within recommended care pathways to CRC diagnosis.     

Preoperative plasma MMP-2 expression is prognostic in colorectal cancer

Introduction:  Appropriate destination and referral urgency of patients with colorectal symptoms is a prerequisite for efficient diagnosis of colorectal cancers (CRC). We aim to evaluate the efficacy of an electronic referral protocol (ERP) for lower GI symptoms in primary care.
Method:  Three hundred referrals including 100 consecutive CRC (group A), 100 actual fast-track referrals (group B) and 100 routine referrals (group C) were run through the ERP. The ability of the ERP to filter out CRC from all three groups was assessed.
Results:  Only 25% of group A had actually been referred as 'fast-track'. The ERP appropriately identified 73% of these cases as 'fast-track' ( P =  0.02). The ERP identified 49% of group B patients as 'fast-track', including eight of the 11 cancers in this group. The ERP downgraded from fast-track 19 of the 28 patients in group B without pathology. In group C, three of the four patients with CRC were upgraded to 'fast-track' and overall 18 routine referrals were directed 'fast-track'.
Conclusion:  This preliminary study suggests that a 'Lower GI electronic referral protocol' in primary care might be more efficient in achieving the twin aims of channelling more patients with CRC through the fast-track referral pathway, whilst reducing inappropriate referrals through this route. Further studies are needed to see if this ERP will increase the yield from the 'fast-track' referral pathway.     

Use of a patient consultation questionnaire and weighted numerical scoring system for the prediction of colorectal cancer and other colorectal pathology in symptomatic patients: A prospective cohort validation study of a Welsh population

Objective There is currently no system in widespread use that accurately prioritizes colorectal referrals in symptomatic patients with an acceptable degree of sensitivity and specificity. We have validated a weighted numerical scoring system for the prioritization of such colorectal referrals in an attempt to rectify this, with detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) the primary outcome. Method We conducted a prospective study of symptomatic patients referred by primary care to the colorectal service in a district general hospital. A computer‐generated weighted numerical score (WNS) was derived from the primary symptoms and symptom combinations. Patients underwent colorectal investigations and a final diagnosis was established. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of CRC detection as determined by the WNS, Department of Health (DOH) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines was determined. Primary Care compliance with guidelines was analysed. Results A definitive diagnosis was established in 3457 patients. One hundred and eighty‐six (5.4%) had CRC. The mean score for the cancer patients (76.9, 95%CI 72–81) was significantly higher than that of non‐cancer patients (52, 95%CI 52–53) P < 0.001. Receiver Operator Curve analysis demonstrates a high discriminatory power for the Patient Consultation Questionnaire (PCQ) with an area under curve of 0.76. Compliance by primary care with the nationally recommended referral guidelines was poor with only 55% and 58% compliance with DOH and National Institute for Clinical Excellence referral guidelines for suspected cancer respectively. Conclusion The PCQ and the WNS is an efficient, objective system that allows the accurate prioritization of colorectal referrals with a high sensitivity for cancer and other serious colorectal pathologies.     

Colorectal cancer – a prospective evaluation of symptom duration and GP referral patterns in an inner city teaching hospital

OBJECTIVE: A high percentage of colorectal cancer patients (CRC) present as an emergency. Our aim was to evaluate delays in referral based on patient and general practitioner (GP) factors to see if there was any difference between elective and emergency patients. METHOD: Symptom questionnaires were prospectively collected from 101 consecutive patients presenting to a single colorectal unit (58 male, 43 female; median age 72 years) and entered into a database. Questionnaires assessed time from symptom onset until first GP visit, time for GP to refer, and type of admission. Symptoms and Dukes stage were noted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight (57%) patients presented electively and 43 (43%) as an emergency. Eighty-eight patients (87%) saw their GP of which 34 (39%) later presented as emergency; 13 (13%) did not see their GP. The median time before patients first sought medical advice was 30 days (0-1095 days). Median delay until treatment was 90 days (range 0-1460 days). Emergency patients waited a median of 11.5 days before visiting the GP, and elective a median of 49.5 days (P = 0.04) (Mann-Whitney U). Nine of 13 patients who did not see their GP presented as an emergency (median wait 44 days). The median time taken for a GP to refer to a hospital specialist was 28 days in elective patients and 14 days in the emergency group. (P = ns) Thirty (38%) patients took longer than six weeks to be referred (33% as an emergency). Thirty-six patients had Dukes A or B and took a median of 30 days to first presentation. Sixty-five had Dukes C or D and took a median of 32 days to first presentation. (P = ns) CONCLUSION: Emergency patients have symptoms for less time before seeking medical advice compared to elective patients. The duration of these symptoms is unrelated to the histological stage at diagnosis. Although the majority of GPs referred CRC patients within six weeks, there was no association between time taken to refer and mode of presentation. The factors that relate to disease stage occur before symptoms are acted on.     

The association between referral source and stage of disease in patients with colorectal cancer

Objective The colorectal fast track (FT) referral system was set up to ensure patients with suspected cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) received prompt access to specialized services. The aim of this study was to ascertain the association between referral source and the time it took to be seen by a colorectal surgeon to establish whether referral source had any association with the stage of disease at presentation in patients with CRC. Method Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed CRC presenting between October 2002 and September 2004 were identified retrospectively. Mode of presentation, symptoms, treatment and histopathology data were analysed. Results Data for 193 patients were analysed. Ninety seven patients (50%) presented via the FT system, 43 (22.5%) from nonfast track outpatient sources (NFT) and 53 (27.5%) as emergencies. NFT patients took significantly longer to be seen by a colorectal specialist than FT patients (median 69 vs 31 days; P < 0.001) and to initiation of treatment (median 57.5 vs 42.5 days; P = 0.001). Overall 152 patients (79%) presented with symptoms that met the FT criteria. A significantly lower number of NFT (P = 0.001) and emergency patients (P < 0.001) presented with FT symptoms compared with patients referred through the FT system. There was no significant difference between referral groups in patients undergoing surgery with potentially curative intent or stage of disease. Conclusion Nonfast track referral leads to a significant delay in being seen by a specialist and in initiation of treatment but no association with more advanced stage of disease or a reduction in potentially curative surgery was found.     

Inter general practice variability in use of referral guidelines for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE: The Two-Week Wait (TWW) referral system for suspected colorectal cancers has a low yield. To examine this, we assessed the referral pattern of general practices within four primary care trusts and looked at the variability of yield of colorectal cancer amongst all TWW referrals and assessed the reasons for variability. METHOD: A prospectively collected database of all colorectal cancers was examined for new cases diagnosed in the 12 months from April 1st 2004. Patients were cross-referenced via general practitioner (GP) codes to identify the referral origin. Reasons for the variability in referral patterns from each general practice were assessed in relation to TWW referrals, population demographics and through postal questionnaire of GPs. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were referred from 49 general practices. Whilst there was a positive correlation between the number of TWW referrals and colorectal cancer per 1000-practice population (P = 0.001; Spearman correlation coefficient r(s=0.447,) two-tailed), there was a big discrepancy between referrals and cancer diagnosed in many general practices. Twenty-six general practices (53%) had no colorectal cancer diagnosed via the TWW route and these practices had significantly lower utilization of the TWW referral pathway. In the postal survey, 22% of GPs were unaware of TWW clinics or colorectal cancer referral guidelines and only 8% of GPs knew the number of referral criteria. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates wide variability within primary care, in the appropriate use of colorectal cancer referral guidelines. General practices should be targeted for education.     

How has the ‘two‐week wait’ rule affected the presentation of colorectal cancer?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 'two-week wait' rule on the presentation of colorectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients referred to a fast-track clinic in a colorectal cancer centre over an 18-month period, documenting outcome, especially colorectal cancer diagnosis. Comparison was made with patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer presenting via other routes in the same time period. RESULTS: Over an 18-month period, 462 patients were seen in the fast-track clinic and 64 (13.8%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. A further 131 patients with colorectal cancer presented to the department in the same time period through other means; 66 via standard out-patient letters, 26 from other departments and 39 (20%) as emergency admissions. Median (range) time to first clinic was 12 (2-28) days for fast-track and 24 (1-118) days for standard referrals (P < 0.0001); median time to first treatment was a further 36 (9-134) and 36.5 (1-226) days, respectively. The fast-track cohort had more advanced staging than those referred by standard letter. There were 19 Dukes' B, 22 Dukes' C and 14 Dukes' D cancers in the fast-track group compared with 28 Dukes' B, 25 Dukes' C and 6 Dukes' D in the standard referral group. After patient interview, only 337 (73%) of 462 fast-track patients appeared to fulfil the referral criteria but of the 64 diagnosed with cancer, 59 (92%) satisfied the criteria. Of the 66 patients with cancer referred by standard letter, 61 (92%) fulfilled the criteria. CONCLUSION: Patients referred to the fast-track clinic were seen quicker than those referred by standard letter, but they tended to have more advanced disease. The fast-track referral criteria were fulfilled by most patients with cancer (whether or not they were referred to the fast track clinic), confirming their validity. After detailed interview in the clinic, a quarter of fast-track referrals were found not to satisfy referral criteria, suggesting that prioritization in primary care could be improved.     

Reducing surgical outpatient waiting is not the solution to meeting the 2005 colorectal cancer target

OBJECTIVES: The majority of colorectal cancers (CRC) are not diagnosed through the Rapid access route (RAR) and follow-ups (FU) may prolong outpatient-waiting time for new referrals. The aim of this study was to assess the relative contributions of an efficient colorectal clinic and a stringent colonoscopy booking system on the total journey time for CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reduced the number of follow-up appointments with the introduction of 'Paper clinics'. The composition of the new clinic was determined by the known cancer yield through RAR and non-RAR route. A prospective analysis of clinics and CRC journey times was undertaken from November 2003 for 13 months, with the new outpatient clinic template introduced in December 2003. This coincided with a stringent policy on referral pattern for colonoscopy. RESULTS: In our hospital, only 4% of RAR yield CRC. Seventy-five percent of our CRC are referred through the non-RAR route. Eighty-one percent of follow-ups in a 'paper clinic' were discharged. A flexible template for the outpatient clinics, introduced a corresponding reduction in follow-up and increased urgent and routine slots. There was a progressive drop in the follow-up to new ratio and the waiting times for routine and urgent category decreased from a median of 15.9 and 3.4 weeks to 6.7 and 0.7 weeks, respectively (P < 0.001). Average waiting times for all categories fell from 13.35 weeks in November 2003 to 3.5 weeks in December 2004, while the number of patients waiting less than 4 weeks rose from 46% to 71%. This was associated with reduction in total journey times from 93 days to 62 days (P < 0.05). DNA rates remained unaffected. CONCLUSION: Modifying outpatient clinic composition with 'paper clinics' reduces the waiting time for all referrals to a surgical clinic with a modest effect on CRC clinic waiting time. Reduction in the total waiting time to first treatment (for CRC) is due to reducing the demand on colonoscopy in favour of barium enema. Redirecting the flow of patients towards barium enema is perhaps one way of improving the existing CRC journey time to first treatment, within existing resources. Achieving the 62 day target for cancer journey time will be difficult unless traditional surgical clinic habits are challenged.     

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.     

Evolution of the two-week rule pathway – direct access colonoscopy vs outpatient appointments: one year''s experience and patient satisfaction survey

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Direct access colonoscopy (DAC) vs outpatient appointments for two-week rule colorectal cancer referrals and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients referred through these routes. Patients and methods Data were collected prospectively from January 2003 to December 2003 on patients who were referred for DAC or outpatient appointments at the discretion of the referring General practitioner via the Lower GI two-week rule pathway. A postal questionnaire was used to survey patient satisfaction. Results Six hundred and thirty-nine patients were referred via the two-week rule pathway; 188 patients underwent colonoscopy at their initial hospital visit and 19 (10.1%) colorectal cancers were diagnosed; 442 patients had an outpatient appointment and 32 (7.2%) colorectal cancers were identified. There were 7 (1%) inappropriate referrals and 2 patients refused investigations. All outcome parameters measured were reduced for patients referred directly for colonoscopy including time to definitive investigations (Median 9 vs 52 days P < 0.0001), time to histological diagnosis (Median 14 vs 42 days P < 0.0001) and time to treatment (Median 55 vs 75 days P < 0.0483). One hundred and seventy patients were surveyed by the postal questionnaire of whom 127 (75%) responded. Ninety-eight percent of patients were satisfied with the service provided. Four (6.6%) of 60 patients who had undergone direct access colonoscopy expressed a desire to be seen at the outpatient department initially. Conclusions Direct access colonoscopy results in significantly reduced times to histological diagnosis and definitive treatment in patients with colorectal cancer. Patients can be directly admitted for investigations bypassing the outpatient clinic without affecting patient satisfaction.     

Management of colorectal cancer in Australian hospitals. Twenty four years' experience

This study analyses time trends in clinical features tumour pathology and treatment outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated by surgery alone during the period 1971 to 1994 in a large Australian tertiary referral centre. Throughout this period, both surgical technique and pathology reporting were standardized and a specialized unit of colon and rectal surgery was established in 1980. Improvement in overall survival during this 24 year period reflects changes in tumour stage with an increasing proportion of stage A tumours, declining proportions of stage D tumours, and some improvement in survival for stages B and C colon cancer only.     

Urgency of referral and its impact on outcome in patients with colorectal cancer

Aim Primary care referral for patients with bowel symptoms is triaged by general practitioners to urgent or routine based on the clinical suspicion of malignancy. Triage directly influences time to assessment and investigation. This study aimed to establish whether urgency of referral of patients with large bowel malignancy has any effect on management. Method An analysis was undertaken of all patients with colorectal cancer referred by primary care and discussed at the regional colorectal multi‐disciplinary team (MDT) meetings from January 2009 to December 2010. Demographics and tumour data were collated prospectively from MDT records, and operation and investigation reports. Results Of 369 primary case referrals with colorectal cancer, 303 (82.1%) were urgent and 66 (17.9%) routine. Patient characteristics (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade) and resection rates were similar in both groups and no significant difference in tumour location was observed. The time from referral to diagnosis was significantly longer in the routine group (mean 73.7 days vs 30.2 days; P = 0.001). Dukes stage was less advanced for the routine referral group, (P = 0.002). Conclusion Urgency of referral decreased the time to diagnosis. This did not influence resection rates. Dukes stage was higher for urgent referrals. Long‐term follow‐up is required to determine any impact on survival.     

Two-week rule: Has prioritisation of breast referrals by general practitioners improved?

INTRODUCTION: A 9-month audit, soon after the introduction of the 2-week rule in the UK in 1999, showed that a significant number of breast cancer patients were referred as non-urgent by their GPs, when the goal is that all suspected breast cancer patients should be seen by a hospital specialist urgently within 2 weeks of referral. The aim of this study was to determine whether GP grading of referrals into urgent and non-urgent had improved. METHOD: A retrospective review of GP referrals over 8 months, between September 2003 and April 2004, with regard to their urgency, subsequent diagnosis and the use of proformas (standardised referral formats) was carried out. The results were compared to the 1999 audit. RESULTS: Eighty-two of 1178 patients referred by GP had breast cancer, versus 115 of 1176 patients referred in 1999. Sixty-eight per cent (56/82) of breast cancer patients were referred as urgent, compared to 47% (54/115) in 1999 (P=0.005). A proforma was used in 47% (548/1178) of GP referrals while no proforma was used in 1999. Sixty-five of the 82 cancer patients were referred with a proforma and 85% (55/65) were referred as urgent. CONCLUSION: GP prioritisation of referrals has improved since 1999. With the use of proformas a significant number of patients with cancer were referred urgently.     

Factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy and management in acute surgical patients

AIM:To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy(DA) in acute surgical patients admitted to a District General Hospital.METHODS: The case notes of all acute surgical patients admitted under the surgical team for a period of two weeks were reviewed for the data pertaining to the admission diagnoses, relevant investigations and final diagnoses confirmed by either surgery or various other diagnostic modalities. The diagnostic pathway was recorded from the source of referral [general practitioner(GP), A and E, in-patient] to the correct final diagnosis by the surgical team. RESULTS: Forty-one patients(23 males) with acute surgical admissions during two weeks of study period were evaluated. The mean age of study group was 61.05 ± 23.24 years. There were 111 patient-doctor encounters. Final correct diagnosis was achieved in 85.4% patients. The DA was 46%, 44%, 50%, 33%,61%, 61%, and 75% by GP, A and E, in-patient referral, surgical foundation year-1, surgical senior house officer(SHO), surgical registrar, and surgical consultant respectively. The percentage of clinical consensus diagnosis was 12%. Surgery was performed in 48.8% of patients. Sixty-seven percent of GP-referred patients, 31% of A and E-referred, and 25% of the in-patient referrals underwent surgery. Surgical SHO made the most contributions to the primary diagnostic pathway.CONCLUSION: Approximately 85% of acute surgical patients can be diagnosed accurately along the diagnostic pathway. Patients referred by a GP are more likely to require surgery as compared to other referral sources. Surgical consultant was more likely to make correct surgical diagnosis, however it is the surgical SHO that contributes the most correct diagnoses along the diagnostic pathway.     

Implications of sub-specialisation on the waiting times of general surgical clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy around sub-specialisation in a district general hospital (DGH) has been ongoing for years. AIM: To study the effect of colorectal sub-specialisation on general surgical cases. METHODS: A retrospective audit between October 2002 and September 2003, including all referrals to the outpatient clinics of a single consultant surgeon in a DGH. RESULTS: 1,055 patients were seen in outpatient clinics, of which 53% (563) were seen in rapid access colorectal clinics. Overall, 87% (914) of patients were diagnosed to have colorectal pathology. The majority of the colorectal cases were referred using the designated referral forms. There were 427 urgent, 162 soon and 325 routine referrals with colorectal pathology, and 35 urgent, 22 soon and 84 routine referrals with non-colorectal pathology. Median waiting times for urgent, soon and routine referrals were 12, 61 and 91 days, respectively, for patients with colorectal pathology, in comparison with 44, 75 and 397 days for non-colorectal pathology. CONCLUSION: This audit confirms that colorectal sub-specialisation has resulted in a significant delay in the management of patients with non-colorectal diseases. This has major implications within a DGH setting.     

GP access to FIT increases the proportion of colorectal cancers detected on urgent pathways in symptomatic patients in Nottingham

ObjectiveService evaluation of GP access to Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in Nottinghamshire and use of FIT for “rule out”, “rule in” and “first test selection”.DesignRetrospective audit of FIT results, CRC outcomes and resource utilisation before and after introduction of FIT in Primary Care in November 2017. Data from the new pathway up to December 2018 was compared with previous experience.ResultsBetween November 2017 and December 2018, 6747 GP FIT test requests yielded 5733 FIT results, of which 4082 (71.2%) were <4.0 μg Hb/g faeces, 579 (10.1%) were 4.0–9.9 μg Hb/g faeces, 836 (14.6%) were 10.0–149.9 μg Hb/g faeces, and 236 (4.1%) were ≥150.0 μg Hb/g faeces. The proportion of “rule out” results <4.0 μg Hb/g faeces was significantly higher than in the Getting FIT cohort (71.2% vs 60.4%, Chi squared 42.8, p < 0.0001) and the proportion of “rule in” results ≥150.0 μg Hb/g faeces was significantly lower (4.1% vs 8.1%, Chi squared 27.3,P < 0.0001).There was a 33% rise in urgent referrals across Nottingham overall during the evaluation period. 2 CRC diagnoses were made in 4082 patients who had FIT<4.0 μg Hb/g faeces. 58.4% of new CRC diagnoses associated with a positive FIT were early stage cancers (Stage I and II). The proportion of all CRC diagnoses that follow an urgent referral s rose after introduction of FIT.ConclusionsFIT allows GP's to select a more appropriate cohort for urgent investigation without a large number of missed diagnoses. FIT appears to promise a “stage migration” effect which may ultimately improve CRC outcomes.