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.     

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.     

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.     

Does the two-week rule pathway improve the diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma? A retrospective review of referral patterns and outcomes over five years in a regional sarcoma centre

INTRODUCTION

The NHS Cancer Plan was introduced in 2000 and included guidelines for the rapid assessment and referral of cases of suspected malignancy. We wished to assess the efficiency and appropriateness of patients referred under the Department of Health''s general practitioner referral guidelines implemented for sarcomas in December 2000.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-note review was performed of all patients referred to our regional soft tissue sarcoma unit between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008. Patients referred under the two-week guidelines and all patients referred routinely were analysed. The main outcome measures were the total number of patients referred on the basis of the two-week guidelines and the proportion they constitute of all referrals. The referring criteria were noted and compared to the observed criteria recorded. The final histo-logical diagnosis of patients referred on the basis of the two-week guidelines are documented.

RESULTS

A total of 2746 referrals for suspected sarcoma were made from January 2004 to December 2008. Of these, 154 referrals were made under the two-week rule of which 102 were referred purely on the clinical criteria for suspected soft tissue sarcoma. The remaining patients were referred after non-urgent special investigations indicated the possibility of sarcoma. Twelve patients referred under the two-week rule were proved to have sarcoma, nine after specific investigations including imaging or histological diagnosis. Of the 102 patients referred on clinical suspicion of a sarcoma, two patients had proven soft tissue sarcomas and one patient a cutaneous sarcoma. Between 2004 and 2008, the number of 2-week referrals rose 25-fold but accounted for an increase of less than 1% of the sarcomas treated in this unit.

CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of all referrals for suspected sarcoma are increasing; however, the rate of increase of 2-week referrals is increasing faster than routine referrals and will exceed it in 2012 if current trends continue. There has not been a commensurate rise in the detection of sarcoma or, more specifically, diagnosis of the deep sarcomas associated with worse prognosis. Current clinical guidelines have essentially had no impact on the early diagnosis and treatment of soft tissue sarcoma, and may negatively impact on the treatment of patients with proven sarcoma by delaying treatment within a regional centre because of redirection of a large number of patients with benign abnormalities to such centres.     

Randomized clinical trial comparing consultant-led or open access investigation for large bowel symptoms

BACKGROUND: Referral of patients with large bowel symptoms is common and increasing. Currently most of these referrals are assessed at an outpatient clinic to determine the need and priority for investigation. METHODS: Over 21 months, 1131 patients referred by the general practitioner with large bowel symptoms were randomized. Patients in the consultant-led group were assessed by surgeons with a colorectal interest while those in the open access group underwent colonoscopy if they were 55 years or older and flexible sigmoidoscopy if younger. RESULTS: The most common symptom among referred patients was rectal bleeding (69.1 per cent) followed by change in bowel habit (48.8 per cent) and abdominal pain (32.3 per cent). There was a significant trend (P < 0.001) for patients in the consultant-led to have more investigations, and more patients in this group had no investigations (P < 0.001). Despite this, the percentage of patients with colonic or other pathology diagnosed was the same in both groups, 63.6 per cent in the consultant-led group compared with 61.8 per cent in the open access group (P = 0.558). Likewise the percentage of patients with cancer or other significant pathology was similar in both groups (13.9 versus 15.4 per cent; P = 0.532). The mean(s.d.) time to diagnose cancer or other significant pathology was 55.1(39.2) days in the consultant-led group compared with 57.4(33.6) days in the open access group (P = 0.514). The cost per patient was almost pound 105 more for patients in the consultant-led group. CONCLUSION: Patients referred by the general practitioner with large bowel symptoms should go directly to a properly managed and staffed open access large bowel investigation unit. This would enable most patients to have their investigations completed at one hospital attendance.     

The South Tyneside FASTRAK service: evaluation of a new model for day surgery

Objective: To evaluate a service (FASTRAK) offering general practitioners direct access to day surgery operative waiting lists, based on explicit guidelines regarding patient suitability for surgery and anaesthesia. Design: Notes abstraction for a cohort of patients referred via FASTRAK and a cohort referred via conventional day surgery routes; postal questionnaire survey of patient satisfaction amongst FASTRAK patients and matched controls referred via conventional routes; postal survey of professional satisfaction. Setting: One district general hospital in the north east of England, and all general practices in that district. Subjects: 1278 patients (1100 conventional day case patients; 178 FASTRAK patients) for notes abstraction; 70 patients for patient satisfaction survey 83 general practitioners for professional satisfaction survey. Main outcome measures: interval from referral to operation, and appropriateness of referral; patient experience and satisfaction with hospital and post-discharge care, especially with respect to information provision, for patient survey; overall rating of service, perceived benefits and disadvantages and future intentions for professional satisfaction survey. Results: The interval from referral to operation was significantly shorter for FASTRAK patients by a median of 91 days. Out of a total of 178 FASTRAK referrals, only seven (4%) were inappropriate whilst diagnosis was wrong in three (2%) cases. Patients referred via FASTRAK were much more likely to have received written information prior to admission (83 vs. 37%: χ²=12.25. P=0.0019). General practitioners (GPs) had positive views of the service; 94% rated it as ‘fair' to ‘very good'. GPs, 90%, perceived the main benefit to patients to be a shorter waiting time for operation; 40% felt that the availability of clear information for patients benefited doctors. Increased general practitioner workload was recognised as a disadvantage (61%) and the main barrier to use of the service was lack of eligible patients under the current guidelines (69%). Conclusions: When diagnosis, indication for surgery and fitness for anaesthesia are not in doubt, general practitioners, given appropriate guidance, are able to provide all the necessary pre-operative services that are usually provided in the general surgical outpatient clinic, without prejudicing the quality of care or decreasing patient satisfaction.     

Do patients with frank haematuria referred under the two-week rule have a higher incidence of bladder cancer?

INTRODUCTION: The new NHS guaranteed that everyone with suspected cancer would be able to see a specialist within 2 weeks of their GP deciding that they need to be seen urgently. We investigated whether referrals under the two-week rule for frank haematuria results in a clinically significant advantage over normal referral pathways in patients with suspected bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for frank haematuria specifically under the two-week cancer rule were prospectively recorded over a 2-year period. Results of haematuria investigations were compared to a control group of routine frank haematuria referrals. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients in each group, four bladder cancers were found in the 2-week rule group and five bladder cancers were found in the control group (P > 0.05). The number of other demonstrable urological causes of frank haematuria was also the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of bladder cancer and other urological pathologies is the same irrespective of referral pattern. It is not clear whether seeing such patients within 2 weeks confers any clinically significant advantage over conventional referral pathways. Not all patients with macroscopic haematuria are referred or seen under the two-week rule, this has considerable clinical governance implications for all departments of urology.     

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

Aim The study investigated the diagnostic outcome of colonoscopy referrals from the emergency department (ED) via an open‐access system. Method  A retrospective cohort study over two years was performed on all patients under 65 years referred for open‐access colonoscopy by the ED in a hospital with an annual ED attendance of 140 000. Patient characteristics and presenting symptoms were retrieved. Waiting times from presentation to colonoscopy were recorded. Results  Over a 2‐year period, 266 patients were referred, of whom 37 defaulted, leaving 229 patients who had a colonoscopy. The mean age was 48.3 ± 11.3 (SD) and the female/male ratio was 229/125. The most frequent presenting symptoms included: rectal bleeding (n = 142, 62%), change of bowel habit (n = 47, 20.5%) and abdominal pain (n = 40, 17.5%). The median waiting time from presentation to colonoscopy was 17 (range 1–69) days. A positive colonoscopic finding was recorded in 45.4%, including colorectal cancer in 12 (5.2%). Conclusion  The rate of a positive diagnoses from the ED‐based colonoscopy referral service was comparable to that of the general Hong Kong population. This approach may help to reduce the waiting time for colonoscopy in a specialist colorectal clinic.     

Reduction in the proportion of patients with colorectal cancer presenting as an emergency following the introduction of fast-track flexible sigmoidoscopy: a three-year prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE: We established a fast-track flexible sigmoidoscopy service to meet the two-week target for colorectal cancer, and have performed a prospective observational study over three years to assess its impact on the proportion of patients with colorectal cancer presenting as an emergency. METHODS: The fast-track system was established on 1 November 1999 using six screening criteria to select high-risk patients. Data on all high-risk patients referred through the fast-track system and all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were recorded prospectively in two time periods: six months before fast-track (1 November 1998 to 30 April 1999, Period 1) and three years following fast-track (1 November 1999 to 31 October 2002, Period 2). RESULTS: In Period 2, 2294 fast-track referrals were received. A total of 635 cases (321 male, 314 female) of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in Period 2 vs. 84 cases (43 male, 41 female) in Period 1. In Period 1, 30 patients with colorectal cancer (35.7% of the total) presented as an emergency vs. 165 patients (25.9%) in Period 2 (P = 0.059, chi(2)test). CONCLUSION: Introduction of a fast-track service to meet the two-week target has resulted in a trend towards fewer emergency presentations with colorectal cancer.     

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.     

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.     

Tales from the frontline: the colorectal battle against SARS

Objective The recent worldwide epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Disease (SARS) caused over 800 deaths and had a major impact on the health services in affected communities. The impact of SARS on colorectal surgery, particularly service provision and training, is unknown. This paper reports these changes from a single colorectal unit at the centre of the outbreak. Patients and methods Hospital databases and electronic patient records covering the 4 months duration of the SARS epidemic and an equivalent period preceding SARS were compared. Data was collected for inpatient admissions, outpatient consultations, operative surgery, colonoscopy and waiting times for appointments or surgery. Results The SARS epidemic resulted in reductions of 52% for new outpatient attendances, 59% for review attendances, 51% for admissions, 32% for surgical procedures and 48% for colonoscopies. Major emergency procedures, cancer resections and complex major procedures were unaffected. Operative procedures by trainees reduced by 48% and procedures by specialists reduced by 21%. Patients awaiting early or urgent outpatient appointments rose by 200% with waiting times for colonoscopy increased by a median 3, 5 or 9 weeks for outpatient, inpatient or non‐urgent cases, respectively. The waiting time for minor elective colorectal surgery was extended by 5 months. Conclusion SARS resulted in a major reduction in the colorectal surgical caseload. The consequences were evidenced by a detrimental effect on waiting times and colorectal training. However, serious pathology requiring emergency or complex surgery was still possible within these constraints.     

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.     

Nurse led flexible sigmoidoscopy in primary care – the first thousand patients

OBJECTIVES: Secondary care Trusts have traditionally been providers of flexible sigmoidoscopy services in the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to establish a Nurse-led flexible sigmoidoscopy clinic that would provide a patient orientated service in a primary care setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A protocol driven flexible sigmoidoscopy clinic was established in a primary care setting. The first thousand patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy at the community clinic were prospectively studied. RESULTS: A nurse endoscopist performed 1002 procedures on 1000 patients. Median time from referral to flexible sigmoidoscopy was 35 days (Range 1-180 days). Two hundred and twenty-two (22%) patients were diagnosed with significant colonic pathology including 25 (2.5%) patients with colorectal cancer. Median time from referral to histological diagnosis of colorectal cancer was 26 days (range 7-87 days). No complications were encountered. Patients who required further follow-up were referred to a Consultant led (29%) or Nurse led clinic (5%) in secondary care. Patient satisfaction as assessed by postal questionnaire indicated that 447 (99%) patients were satisfied with the service. CONCLUSIONS: A community endoscopy clinic can provide a safe and effective flexible sigmoidoscopy service with high levels of patient satisfaction. Nurse Endoscopists can extend their role in primary care with adequate training and support from secondary care hospitals.     

2-Week wait referrals in suspected skin cancer: Does an instructional module for general practitioners improve diagnostic accuracy?

The two-week wait (2WW) scheme in the United Kingdom for suspected skin cancer has been criticised for having low pick up rates, with a high proportion of clinically benign lesions being referred as suspicious.We studied the referral patterns of skin cancer to our hospital under the 2WW initiative, and aimed to quantify the effect of a targeted continuing medical education (CME) module on improving diagnostic accuracy.All referrals to our hospital (dermatology and plastic surgery) under the 2WW rule were audited between July and September 2006. A targeted CME module was sent to GPs describing and illustrating common lesions. After 11 months, all 2WW referrals were prospectively studied between August and October 2007. The main outcome measure was the percentage of correctly referred squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and melanomas.237 referrals were made between July and August 2006, and 223 referrals between August and October 2007. The proportion of appropriately referred skin cancers (SCCs and melanomas) was 23.2% before CME, and 20.6% after CME. There were no differences in pick up rates before and after the CME amongst suspected SCCs (21.1% vs. 29.7%) or melanomas (24.6% vs. 15.1% respectively). Referrals to Plastic Surgery were more likely to be confirmed histologically as melanomas or SCCs (23.6% and 33.7% respectively) than those made to Dermatology (17.5% and 15.3% respectively).The proportion of correctly suspected skin malignancies under the 2WW initiative remains low despite education. A targeted CME module sent to GPs fails to improve pick up rates. There is a need for continuing dermatology training amongst referring physicians.     

Resource implications of outpatient referrals to a general urological service.

The effects of new outpatient referrals on the dynamics of global provision in a surgical service has not previously been defined. Because of managerial pressure to reduce the time interval between general practitioner referral and first specialist assessment, many services are now faced with additional outpatient loads without any clear idea of the effect that this additional burden will have on overall practice. In an attempt to define the logistic implications of a new outpatient load, 293 patients, referred from primary care to a general urological service, were followed for a further two interactions with the secondary care team. 'One-stop' visits with in-clinic investigation and an active discharge policy were employed to assist with efficient patient management. Of the original patients, 28% required investigations not available in the clinic, with cost and logistic implications for support services. In all, 32% of the patients needed further follow-up appointments, despite the active discharge policy. This necessitated 95 people being seen in additional clinic time. Of the patients referred, 37% needed inpatient treatment; 46% being day case procedures, the remainder constituting a variable case mix. This work necessitated 7.1 operating sessions and an additional 75 inpatient bed days for every 100 new patients referred. A model for determining the resource requirements for a surgical outpatient load is proposed.     

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.     

Breast disease and the general surgeon. II. Effect of audit on the referral of patients with breast problems.

OBJECTIVES--To determine the number of patients with breast problems referred to general surgical clinics in a district general hospital and to assess the effect of changes implemented following the previous study on waiting time, investigations performed, and management of the patients. DESIGN--Two prospective outpatient audits with patient details recorded on questionnaires by the medical staff. SETTING--The general surgical outpatient clinics of a single general surgical firm at Newbury District Hospital, Berkshire. PATIENTS--Those patients attending the above clinics during two 3-month periods, 1 October to 31 December 1989 (Study 1), and 16 April to 19 July 1990 (Study 2). RESULTS--Of new referrals, 25% were for a breast problem. The waiting time fell from a median of 22 days in Study 1 to 10 days in Study 2. There was no significant difference between the studies for the proportion of each type of investigation performed. Between 80% and 85% of new patients did not need admission for an operation; however, of those operations performed, 65% were for carcinoma. The number of patients diagnosed as having carcinoma was the same in the two studies. CONCLUSIONS--That 25% of new, and up to 40% of follow-up patients seen in a general surgical clinic have breast problems. Many patients do not regard their symptoms as worrying and will not attend early clinic appointments even if these are offered. Writing to patients and general practitioners with the results of investigations ensures quicker receipt of the diagnosis and treatment plan, and reduces follow-up attendance. Only 15-20% of new patients need admission for an operation, and carcinoma is found in only 13-17%. Open access to the clinics does not result in general practitioners referring patients unnecessarily with breast problems.     

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.     

The two-week waiting time standard for cancer: a neurosurgical perspective

The implementation of the two-week wait initiative for cancer referrals in the NHS has had a major impact on outpatient services. A low clinical detection rate among GPs for neurological cancer has resulted in a large number of urgent referrals with a low yield of positive diagnoses. We have devised a strategy for minimizing the impact on outpatient clinics: patients are scanned prior to clinical review and those with normal scans are referred back to the GP without a clinic appointment. Out of 69 referrals of suspected CNS cancer made in 2003, 61 were scanned and six resulted in a positive diagnosis. The equivalent of 10 clinics was saved, and an increased speed of diagnosis and treatment was achieved with no compromise in patient care. Our study illustrates the consequences of the 2-week wait initiative on the neurosurgical service, and proposes an effective and safe solution.