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

Background International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. Aim To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. Design and setting Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. Method Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. Results Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non- specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision- making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. Conclusion Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BackgroundUK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer.AimTo explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care.Design & settingFeasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK.MethodFrom an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.ResultsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery.ConclusionData collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionResults of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)

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

BACKGROUND: International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. AIM: To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. METHOD: Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. RESULTS: Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. CONCLUSION: Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

Abstract Background Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Methods The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. Discussion This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559. </jats:sec

‘ThinkCancer!’ – Randomised feasibility trial of a novel practice-based early cancer diagnosis intervention

UK cancer deaths remain high; primary care is key for earlier cancer diagnosis as half of avoidable delays occur here. Improvement is possible through lower referral thresholds, better guideline adherence, and better safety netting systems. Few interventions target whole practice teams. We developed a novel whole practice team intervention to address this. To test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, complex behavioural intervention 'ThinkCancer!' for assessment in a subsequent Phase III trial. Pragmatic, superiority pilot RCT with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis in Welsh general practices. Clinical outcome data were collected from practices (the unit of randomisation). Practice characteristics and cancer safety netting systems were assessed. Individual practice staff completed evaluation and feedback forms, and qualitative interviews. The intervention was adapted and refined. Trial recruitment and workshop deliveries took place between March 2020 to May 2021. Trial progression criteria for recruitment, intervention fidelity and routine data collection were met. Staff-level fidelity, retention and individual level data collection processes were reviewed and amended. Interviews highlighted positive participant views on all aspects of the intervention. All practices set out to liberalise referral thresholds appropriately, implement guidelines, and address safety netting plans in detail. 'ThinkCancer!' appears feasible and acceptable; the new iteration of the workshops was completed, and the Phase III trial has been funded to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this novel professional behaviour change intervention. Delivery at scale to multiple practices will likely improve fidelity and reach. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024, The Authors.

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

Background: UK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer. Aim: To explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care. Design & setting: Feasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK. Method: From an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19. Results: The total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery. Conclusion: Data collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Results of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)

Improving the diagnosis of cancer in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of the ThinkCancer! study.

BackgroundCancer survival in the UK remains low compared to other Western countries including Australia, Canada and European countries. Delays in cancer diagnosis have an adverse impact on patient well-being and survival. Welsh Government outline a number of challenges with respect to earlier cancer diagnosis, including a lack of awareness of ‘red flag’ symptoms and difficulties among GPs and other healthcare professionals in identifying cancers that present with vague or non-specific symptoms. For some cancers, earlier diagnosis is associated with greater survival, better patient experience and quality of life, and lower healthcare costs.&#x0D; MethodsThe ThinkCancer! intervention is a complex behaviour change intervention, which aims to change the behaviours of primary care practice teams when thinking of and acting on clinical symptoms that could be cancer. From an NHS perspective, we conducted a feasibility economic analysis of the ThinkCancer! intervention. We used micro-costing methodology to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer! intervention. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the intervention was mostly delivered remotely in a digital format. Intervention deliverers completed data collection sheets (including forms recording materials used and intervention deliverer time) and provided information on primary care staff attendance at each of the ThinkCancer! workshops. Budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.&#x0D; FindingsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25,030. Costs per practice ranged from £431 to £2,498, with an average cost per practice of £1,311 (SD: 579.5). The potential budget impact if the intervention were to be delivered face-to-face across the 19 general practices would be £34,630. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if the intervention were to be delivered by one GP educator, the total estimated cost for face-to-face delivery would be £31,232. With the addition of one support role assisting the GP educator with the intervention delivery, the total cost of face-to-face delivery is estimated to be approximately £33,138.&#x0D; ConclusionsResults of this feasibility study are being used to inform a definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Primary care interventions to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer have the potential to reduce large costs to the NHS and improve patient and carer outcomes as later stage cancer treatments are often longer, more aggressive to patients, with larger associated healthcare costs compared to earlier stage treatment.&#x0D; http://wicked.bangor.ac.uk/ </jats:p