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.     

A study on the routes of referral for patients with colorectal cancer and its affect on the time to surgery and pathological stage

OBJECTIVE: Firstly, to determine the proportion of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients seen within an established two week rule (TWR) system and to observe other routes of referral for CRC patients. Secondly to determine if referral route affects the interval to, and cancer stage at, definitive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GP referrals of patients with CRC were divided into direct surgical outpatient referrals (group 1) and indirect referrals to accident and emergency and medical outpatients (group 2). Data were recorded on the time to definitive treatment and the location and stage of tumour. RESULTS: There were 78 patients in group 1. Thirty (20%) patients were referred by their GP under the TWR, 31 (21%) as urgent and 17 (12%) as nonurgent referrals, to surgical outpatients. There were 69 patients in group 2. Forty-two (29%) were referred initially to the accident and emergency department and 27 (18%) to general medical outpatients. Group 1 patients were treated within a median of 70.5 days and group 2 patients within 14 days of referral (P < 0.0005). Group 2 contained tumours of a significantly more advanced pathological stage (P = 0.015) and more proximal colonic cancers (P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Fifty-three percent of patients with CRC were referred directly to surgical outpatients, 20% under the TWR guidelines. Despite having this system in place direct referrals were slower to treatment but the tumours were still of a less advanced pathological stage. Compliance with the TWR should not be used as a means of assessing a colorectal unit's treatment of CRC.     

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.     

Straight to colonoscopy: the ideal patient pathway for the 2-week suspected cancer referrals?

INTRODUCTION

The UK has a higher mortality for colon cancer than the European average. The UK Government introduced a 2-week referral target for patients with colorectal symptoms meeting certain criteria and 62-day target for the delivery of treatment from the date of referral for those patients diagnosed with cancer. Hospitals are expected to meet 100% and 95% of these targets, respectively; therefore, an efficient and effective patient pathway is required to deliver diagnosis and treatment within this period. It is suggested that ‘straight-to-test’ will help this process and we have examined our implementation of ‘straight-to-colonoscopy’ as a method of achieving this aim.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out a retrospective audit of 317 patients referred under the 2-week rule over a 1-year period between October 2004 and September 2005 and were eligible for ‘straight-to-colonoscopy''. Demographic data, appropriateness of referral and colonoscopy findings were obtained. The cost effectiveness and impact on waiting period were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 317 patients were seen within 2 weeks. Cancer was found in 23 patients and all were treated within 62 days. Forty-four patients were determined by the specialist to have been referred inappropriately because they did not meet NICE referral guidelines. No cancer was found in any of the inappropriate referrals. The use of straight-to-test colonoscopy lead to cost savings of £26,176 (£82.57/patient) in this group compared to standard practice. There was no increase in waiting times.

CONCLUSIONS

Straight-to-colonoscopy for urgent suspected cancer referrals is a safe, feasible and cost-effective method for delivery of the 62-day target and did not lead to increase in the endoscopy waiting list.     

Referral prioritization at the specialist breast clinic

Aim: The workload of specialist breast clinics is ever increasing and long waiting time is expected. Clinical guidelines were employed to sort out the priority of consultation. The effectiveness of this system is reviewed. Methods: All referrals seen at the specialist breast clinic from January 2002 to March 2002 were retrospectively studied. The guidelines for allocation to urgent appointment included – (1) urgent referral as determined by referring physician; (2) referral not labelled as urgent but certain ‘high risk’ criteria were present: age more than 50, lump bigger than 3 cm, bloody nipple discharge and physical signs suggestive of malignancy like irregular or fixed breast lump. Routine appointment was given if these criteria were not met. Patients with imaging and cytology results available before specialist consultation were given appointment with reference to the investigation result and excluded from the present analysis. Outcome of the patients in each category was assessed. Results: 165 referrals were analysed and 14 cancers were diagnosed. The mean waiting time for urgent and routine appointments were 2 weeks and 20 weeks, respectively. There were 52 urgent referrals and eight (15.4%) cancers were diagnosed compared to six cancers (5.3%) diagnosed in the 113 non‐urgent referrals. Forty‐two patients among these 113 patients were given urgent appointment due to the presence of high‐risk criteria and as a result, all the six patients with cancers were allocated to urgent appointments. None of the patients given routine appointment had breast cancer diagnosed. Conclusion: It was reassuring that no cancer was diagnosed in patients who had been allocated to routine appointment. In addition to the clinical assessment by the referring physicians, certain ‘high‐risk’ criteria serve as useful guides in assigning the urgency of specialist consultation.     

Adherence to waiting-time targets for pediatric nephrology clinic referrals

Waiting times for specialist consultation have not been adequately studied, especially in the pediatric population. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which pediatric nephrology subspecialty clinic referral waiting times are adhered to with regard to previously determined access targets. Referrals to the pediatric nephrology clinics at Children’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada, received between October 2007 and November 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Appointment schedule was allotted by a nephrologist based on the patient’s presenting complaint, reported in the referral, in accordance with the previously determined access targets. Adherence to access targets was assessed by the actual clinic visit. There were a total of 250 referrals during the timeframe studied. The median waiting time was 73 (range 0–193) days. Overall, 64% (159/250) of patients met their access target. The median time that patients waited over their access target was 6 (range 0–78) days. Of the patients who did not meet their access targets, 31% (28/91) exceeded their target by 20% or more. Office handling was a component for patients with access target <1 week, whereas availability of clinic space was the main reason for nonadherence to access targets.     

Fast-track barium enema: meeting the two-week wait rule for patients with suspected colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES: To meet the introduction of the two-week wait (TWW) rule for patients with suspected colorectal cancer, a fast-track barium enema (FTBE) service was set up. This study was conducted to evaluate the success of this approach in preparation for meeting the forthcoming targets on waiting times to treatment from referral and diagnosis. METHODS: All patients were offered a double-contrast barium enema within two-weeks, except those with a palpable rectal mass. FTBE were double-reported by specialist gastrointestinal radiologists. Patients with a suspected malignancy were booked for an urgent staging CT and outpatient appointment, whilst the remaining patients were referred back to their general practitioner with a report. Prospective data were collected and two 16-month periods analysed. RESULTS: Three hundred and nine patients had a FTBE over the first 16-month period and 277 (89.6%) were seen within two-weeks. Mean times from initial referral to staging CT and first outpatient appointment were 30.7 and 36.0 days, respectively. Cancer was confirmed histologically in 32 (10.4%) patients. Of 267 patients without a malignancy, 46 (17.2%) were referred back to the colorectal outpatient or endoscopy service within 6-months. The number of referrals increased with time from a mean of 19.3 per month in the first period to 27.8 in the second, but the percentage with a suspected malignancy remained similar at 13.6% and 10.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FTBE diagnosed malignancy accurately and facilitated rapid staging. The TWW target was met in almost 90% of patients, whilst the impact on the colorectal outpatient and endoscopy service was minimized.     

A single common urgent pathway for all colorectal referrals reduces time to diagnosis and treatment

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the urgent referral of patients with suspected colorectal cancer were introduced in 2000. They aimed to facilitate the prompt diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptoms suggestive of malignant disease. Recent assessment of these guidelines has suggested that although they identify 9-14% of patients with colorectal cancer, they may be used inappropriately and may lead to delays in treatment for those patients with cancers whose symptoms do not fit the guidelines. We aimed to assess the effect of introducing a single pathway for all referrals irrespective of indicated urgency. METHOD: All referral letters to a single consultant colorectal surgeon over a 6-month period were coded 'urgent' irrespective of the indicated urgency on the original referral letter. Data was collected prospectively on 47 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer identified over the trial period. Patient demographics, the mode of presentation, urgency of referral and waiting times were documented. RESULTS: Following the introduction of the common urgent referral pathway, no patient waited longer than 62 days from referral to treatment or 31 days from the decision to treat to first treatment, thus meeting government targets introduced in 2005. CONCLUSION: The introduction of the urgent referral guidelines has accelerated the referral pathway for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer, although this is at the expense of the majority of patients who present via conventional pathways. The introduction of a common urgent pathway allows prompt diagnosis and treatment and is of particular benefit for the majority of patients not referred via the 2-week standard. Until a more accurate method of identifying the highest risk patients is implemented, we suggest that all patients are seen on an urgent basis.     

Triaging referral to a specialist breast clinic

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a triage system in predicting patients with malignancy among those referred to a specialist breast clinic. METHODS: A retrospective study of all referrals seen at the specialist breast clinic from January 2002 to June 2002 was conducted. The triage system allocated an urgent appointment if (i) urgent referral was requested by the referring physicians or (ii) 'non-urgent referral' was made and any one of the following 'high-risk' criteria were present: aged more than 50 years when presenting with breast lump, lump larger than 3 cm, bloody nipple discharge or physical signs suggestive of malignancy. Routine appointment was given if these conditions were not met. The outcomes of individual groups were assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-three referrals were analysed and 44 cancers (13.2%) were diagnosed. The mean waiting time for urgent and routine appointments was 19 and 154 days, respectively. There were 108 urgent referrals and 21 (19.4%) cancers were diagnosed. Ninety-two patients were given an urgent appointment because of the presence of high-risk criteria, and 21 cancers were detected (22.8%). After the two-stage triage, breast cancer was subsequently diagnosed in only 2 out of the remaining 163 patients (1.2%) given a routine appointment. CONCLUSION: Most of the patients with cancer (96%) were given an urgent appointment through the triage system. In addition to the assessment by referring physicians, certain high-risk criteria are helpful to select patients who should be seen urgently.     

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.     

Audit of patient's waiting time to see their family doctor prior to referral to a fast-access breast clinic in the era of a guaranteed 2-week wait

PURPOSE: A prospective study aimed at assessing the effect of introduction of a fast-tract referral system for patients with suspected breast cancer and the quality of GP referrals in Barnsley. METHODS: Between February and April 2001, 70 consecutive patients with symptomatic breast disorders were seen in the fast-access breast clinic. Mean age=46 years (range 18-84). Ten non-urgent referrals seen in the study period were included in the analysis to determine the appropriateness of such referrals. Three screening criteria were used to select high-risk patients and data were recorded prospectively. Patients were classified as urgent, soon or routine based on symptomatology. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients seen, 20 were considered as urgent, 20 as soon and 30 as routine. Forty patients were seen within the '2-week wait' period. Twelve were classified on clinical grounds as malignant. Mean waiting time to see the GP was 2.2 days. Mean waiting time to see the specialist breast surgeon was 6.6 days. CONCLUSION: A fast-track system for suspected breast cancer has led to a significant reduction in the time to diagnosis and initiation of a definitive treatment, with most made within 2 weeks. Fast-track referrals is not appropriate in all cases.     

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.     

Impact of the '2 week wait' directive for suspected cancer on service provision in a symptomatic breast clinic

BACKGROUND: The '2 week wait' directive (Health Service Circular (HSC) 1998/242) guaranteeing that 'everyone with suspected breast cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner (GP) deciding they need to be seen urgently' is a unique audited approach to access for the British National Health Service, the effects of which have been assessed in a non-academic symptomatic breast clinic. METHODS: New GP referrals (n = 607) were reviewed prospectively in two comparable 3-month intervals, beginning 1 April 1998 and 1 April 1999, to determine the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis from the referral letter and the effects of the directive on waiting times for appointments and utilization of clinics. RESULTS: The urgency of referral was not specified in 53 per cent of GP referrals. For the 'urgent' cases (25 per cent of all new referrals) the probability of a final diagnosis of breast cancer was 0.19. The breast specialists prospectively achieved a rate of 0.26 from 99 per cent of the same referral letters. 'Urgent' referrals did not wait significantly longer in 1999 (median 9 versus 10 days) but waiting times for new appointments overall increased (13 versus 16 days; P < 0.01), and this was greatest for 'routine' [14] versus 21 days; P < 0.001). These changes were caused by an increase in the number of clinic appointments, due to significant increases in median number of visits to diagnosis or discharge and clinic non-attendance in 1999, resulting in overbooking. Telephonic communications were associated with faster median access times (fax 8 days; telephone 2 days), relative to mailed [19] days) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Breast specialists were better overall at assessing the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis. The waiting time for 'urgent' appointments was unchanged following HSC 1998/242, but there was an increased wait for other patients, especially those assessed as having a lower probability of cancer.     

The fourteen-day rule and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the fourteen-day rule on the colorectal service of a district general hospital. METHODS: Prospective audit of all patients referred by general practitioners to the colorectal service of a district general hospital serving a population of approximately 300,000 people. The main outcome measures were: (i) mean interval in days from referral to first clinic appointment; (ii) first clinic appointment to diagnosis; and (iii) overall interval from referral to diagnosis. RESULTS: There was a change in the referral pattern with greater numbers of 'fourteen-day rule' and urgent referrals than expected (P < 0.001). The mean time interval from referral to diagnosis was reduced (P < 0.01). This was due to a reduction in the wait for a first clinic appointment (P < 0.01). The wait between first appointment and diagnosis was unchanged (P < 0.05). Waiting times for patients referred as 'routine' or whose GPs did not specify a priority also improved. CONCLUSIONS: The 'fourteen-day rule' with respect to colorectal cancer has reduced waiting times for a first appointment to see a specialist. Further improvements will require additional resources to reduce the delay for investigations. The effect on long-term survival remains to be seen.     

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.     

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.     

Direct Access Minor Surgery service--patient satisfaction and effectiveness

INTRODUCTION: Waiting lists for surgical out-patients and elective operations are a major concern of the National Health Service. A Direct Access Minor Surgery programme in an ambulatory minor theatre area has been introduced to expedite patient treatment. The response of patients to this service has been assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A postal questionnaire was offered to all patients attending for the Direct Access Minor Surgery over a period of 20 months (January 2002 to August 2003). Patients were asked about direct attendance for surgery without a prior out-patient appointment, about waiting time before operation on the day of surgery and the adequacy of pre-operative information. Overall satisfaction was assessed using a scoring system. The incidence of inappropriate referrals was analysed. The influence of the service on waiting lists and resources was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were operated on, 257 lesions being excised. Response rate to the postal questionnaire was 55%. Of respondents, 75% thought that it was appropriate to attend the hospital directly without an out-patient clinic appointment. To 83% the waiting time was acceptable. Of patients, 90% were happy with the pre-operative information. Overall, 91% of respondents were very satisfied with the service. Inappropriate referrals were 4%. The new service reduced waiting time for minor surgery from 53 to 10 weeks. It also released approximately 140 new out-patient slots per annum. CONCLUSION: Direct Access Minor Surgery is a safe and favoured service with high patient satisfaction.     

Low incidence of perioperative chemotherapy for stage III bladder cancer 1998 to 2003: a report from the National Cancer Data Base

PURPOSE: Studies of perioperative chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer have shown a survival benefit with combined modality therapy. We reviewed chemotherapy use in patients with stage III transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder from 1998 to 2003 to evaluate perioperative chemotherapy treatment patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base collected data on approximately 60% of all newly diagnosed bladder cancer cases in the United States from 1998 to 2003. We queried the National Cancer Data Base for all treatment of male and female patients 18 years old or older with bladder transitional cell carcinoma diagnosed between 1998 and 2003. A total of 224,060 bladder transitional cell carcinoma records were reviewed. Perioperative chemotherapy was defined as chemotherapy given within 4 months before and 4 months after surgery. Of 11,339 cases of stage III bladder cancer treatment, analysis was possible for 7,161. RESULTS: Treatment patterns were analyzed in 7,161 patients with stage III bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Perioperative chemotherapy was administered to 11.6% of patients with stage III bladder transitional cell carcinoma with 10.4% receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and 1.2% receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. When comparing perioperative chemotherapy use by diagnosis year in 1998 and 2003, a small statistically significant increase was observed using the Pearson's chi-square test with Bonferroni correction (p <0.05) at 11.3% of patients in 1998 vs 16.8% in 2003. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative chemotherapy is underused in the management of surgically resectable stage III transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. This finding may reflect a delay in implementing the results of recently reported randomized trials, a low incidence of referrals by urologists for chemotherapy and/or confidence in salvage chemotherapy as an equivalent alternative. Further followup will determine if this treatment pattern changes in the future.     

Referral guidelines for colorectal cancer--do they work?

AIMS AND METHODS: Urgent referral guidelines for patients with suspected colorectal cancer were introduced in 2000. In a district general hospital, we prospectively assessed the effect of these guidelines on the number of urgent referrals received and the number found to have cancer. RESULTS: Over the first year, 180 urgent referrals were received of whom 95 (55%) fitted the guidelines. Of these 95 patients, 24 (25%) had colorectal cancer. Conversely, only 2 of the 85 patients (2%) who did not fit the guidelines had colorectal cancer. During the same time period, a total of 145 new cancers were identified within the district of which 119 (82%) were in patients who had not been urgently referred to out-patients as suspected colorectal cancer. DISCUSSION: The guidelines are effective in that patients who fit them have a significant chance of having colorectal cancer. However, the majority of cancers are identified outside the new system. Efforts to reduce delays in diagnosis need to recognise that many patients do not have features which fit published referral criteria. Improved support for general practitioners and better access to specialist services are required to reduce delays in diagnosis.     

Positive impact of a breast-health triaging system on breast-care access and physician satisfaction

OBJECTIVE: Minority patients are at risk for delayed breast cancer treatment. Using nonsurgical breast specialists could improve access but requires appropriate referral to ensure prompt cancer care. Our objective was to evaluate a referral triage system in a combined medical/surgical breast health program (BHP). METHODS: A triage system based on imaging findings, examination, and patient age was instituted. An advanced practice nurse managed referrals and a prospective database. Referring providers were surveyed after 2 years. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2006, 4,840 referrals were made to surgeons (57%) and nonsurgeons (43%). Breast cancers were found in 8.5% of patients. Referral error occurred in 4 cancer patients (.1%). BHP-referred patients had significantly shorter times to surgical appointment (10 days) than non-BHP referrals (45 days). A referring provider survey indicated 96% satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A breast-care triage system expedited cancer care resulting in physician satisfaction and increased referrals.