Setting up a rapid diagnostic clinic for patients with vague symptoms of cancer: a mixed method process evaluation study

Christos Vasilakis, Paul Forte, Christos Vasilakis, Paul Forte

Abstract

Background: The study sought to evaluate the impact of a Rapid Diagnostic Clinic (RDC) service designed to improve general practitioner (GP) referral processes for patients who do not meet existing referral criteria yet present with vague - but potentially concerning - symptoms of cancer. We sought to investigate how well the RDC has performed in the views of local GPs and patients, and through analysis of its activity and performance in the first two years of operation.

Methods: The study setting was a single, hospital-based RDC clinic in a University Health Board in South Wales. We used a mixed-method process evaluation study, including routinely collected activity and diagnosis data. All GPs were invited to participate in an online survey (34/165 responded), and a smaller group (n = 8) were interviewed individually. Two focus groups with patients and their carers (n = 7) provided in-depth personal accounts of their experiences.

Results: The focus groups revealed high rates of patient satisfaction with the RDC. GPs were also overwhelmingly positive about the value of the RDC to their practice. There were 574 clinic attendances between July 2017 and March 2019; the mean age of attendees was 68, 57% were female, and approximately 30% had three or more vague symptoms. Of those attending, we estimated between 42 to 71 (7.3 and 12.3%) received preliminary cancer diagnoses. Median time from GP referral to RDC appointment was 12 days; from GP referral to cancer diagnosis was 34 days. Overall, 73% of RDC patients received either a new diagnosis (suspected cancer 23.2%, non-cancer 35.9%) or an onward referral to secondary care for further investigation with no new diagnosis (13.9%), and 27% were referred to primary care with no new diagnosis.

Conclusions: The RDC appears to enable a good patient experience in cancer diagnosis. Patients are seen in timely fashion, and the service is highly regarded by them, their carers, and referring GPs. Although too early to draw conclusions about long-term patient outcomes, there are strong indications to suggest that this model of service provision can set higher standards for a strongly patient-centred service.

Keywords: Cancer diagnosis; Early detection of cancer; General practice; Non-specific symptoms; Rapid Diagnostic Clinic.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
RDC patients with non-cancer onward referrals by ‘diagnosis group’ (n = 206). Blank: no diagnosis recorded in the dataset

References

    1. Gagliardi A, Grunfeld E, Evans W. Evaluation of diagnostic assessment units in oncology: a systematic review. J of Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1126–1135. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.057.
    1. Allgar V, Neal R, Ali N, Leese B, Heywood P, Proctor G, et al. Urgent GP referrals for suspected lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer. Brit J Gen Pract. 2006;56(526):355–62.
    1. Welsh Cancer Surveillance and Intelligence Unit . Cancer survival in Wales, 1995–2016 Official and Statutory Statistics. Latest official statistics for one-year and five-year population-based net cancer survival for diagnosis years 1995–1999 to 2012–2016. 2019.
    1. Scheel BI, Ingebrigtsen SG, Thorsen T, Holtedahl K. Cancer suspicion in general practice: the role of symptoms and patient characteristics, and their association with subsequent cancer. Brit J Gen Pract. 2013;63(614):e627–e635. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X671614.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . NICE Guideline NG12 Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. 2015.
    1. Pearson C, Poirier V, Fitzgerald K, Rubin G, Hamilton W. Cross-sectional study using primary care and cancer registration data to investigate patients with cancer presenting with non-specific symptoms. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e033008. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033008.
    1. Sewell B, Jones M, Gray H, Wilkes H, Lloyd-Bennett C, Beddow K, et al. Rapid cancer diagnosis for patients with vague symptoms: a cast-effectiveness study. Brit J Gen Prac. 2020;70(692):E186–92. 10.3399/bjgp20X708077.
    1. Brocken P, Prins J, Dekhuijzen P, van der Heijden H. The faster the better? A systematic review on distress in the diagnostic phase of suspected cancer, and the influence of rapid diagnostic pathways. Psycho-Oncol. 2012;21(1):1–10. doi: 10.1002/pon.1929.
    1. Jensen H, Torring M, Olesen F, Overgaard J, Vedsted P. Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey and registry study. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(1). 10.1186/1471-2407-14-636.
    1. Vedsted P, Olesen F. A differentiated approach to referrals from general practice to support early cancer diagnosis - the Danish three-legged strategy. Brit J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):65–69. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.44.
    1. Ingeman M, Christensen M, Bro F, Knudsen S, Vedsted P. Open access the Danish cancer pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer-a cross-sectional study of patient characteristics and cancer probability. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):421. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1424-5.
    1. Naeser E, Moller H, Fredberg U, Vedsted P. Mortality of patients examined at a diagnostic centre: a matched cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;55:130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2018.06.008.
    1. NHS Wales Informatics Service. Welsh Clinical Portal. Available from . Accessed 28 Jan 2021.
    1. Rutakumwa R, Mugisha J, Bernays S, Kabunga E, Tumwekwase G, Mbonye M, et al. Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: a comparative analysis. Qual Res. 2020;20(5):565–81. 10.1177/1468794119884806.
    1. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Inter J Qual Meth. 2006;5(1):80–92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107.
    1. Chapman D. ACE MDC project approaches to understanding pathway cost. Cancer Research UK / Macmillan; 2019. Available from . Accessed 26 Sep 2020.
    1. Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2009;36(1):24–34. doi: 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4.
    1. Cancer Research UK. Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate (ACE) Programme; 2020. Available from . Accessed 5 Oct 2020.
    1. Fuller E, Fitzgerald K, Hiom S. Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate Programme: a new approach to cancer diagnosis. Brit J Gen Pract. 2016;66(645):176–177. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X684457.
    1. Cancer Research UK. Key messages from the evaluation of multidisciplinary diagnostic Centres (MDC): a new approach to the diagnosis of cancer. 2019.
    1. Dimick JB, Ryan AM. Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2014;312(22):2401–2402. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.16153.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다