***TEST SUBMISSION*** BMJ-15: Acceptance within last 3 months (01/03/2020); Online publication within 12 months (10/12/2020); Embargo (10/09/2021) less than 12 months from pub date; VoR

From UAT Test publisher via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2020-03-01, epub 2020-12-10Article version: VoRPublication status: PublishedAbstract: TEST: THIS IS A PUBLICATIONS ROUTER TEST SUBMISSION. Objectives: To quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in England by using recent World Endoscopy Organisation guidelines, compare incidence among colonoscopy providers, and explore associated factors that could benefit from quality improvement initiatives. Design: Population based cohort study. Setting: National Health Service in England between 2005 and 2013. Population: All people undergoing colonoscopy and subsequently diagnosed as having colorectal cancer up to three years after their investigation (PCCRC-3yr). Main outcome measures: National trends in incidence of PCCRC (within 6-36 months of colonoscopy), univariable and multivariable analyses to explore factors associated with occurrence, and funnel plots to measure variation among providers. Results: The overall unadjusted PCCRC-3yr rate was 7.4% (9317/126 152), which decreased from 9.0% in 2005 to 6.5% in 2013 (P<0.01). Rates were lower for colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme (593/16 640, 3.6%), while they were higher for those conducted by non-NHS providers (187/2009, 9.3%). Rates were higher in women, in older age groups, and in people with inflammatory bowel disease or diverticular disease, in those with higher comorbidity scores, and in people with previous cancers. Substantial variation in rates among colonoscopy providers remained after adjustment for case mix. Conclusions: Wide variation exists in PCCRC-3yr rates across NHS colonoscopy providers in England. The lowest incidence was seen in colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to address this variation in rates and prevent colorectal cancer by enabling earlier diagnosis, removing premalignant polyps, and therefore improving outcomes

Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: A randomised trial

Objective Suboptimal adenoma detection rate (ADR) at colonoscopy is associated with increased risk of interval colorectal cancer. It is uncertain how ADR might be improved. We compared t

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. METHODS: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014-15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. CONCLUSION: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.GL is supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship (award C18081/A18180). GL is an associate director (co-investigator) of the multi-institutional CanTest Research Collaborative funded by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Catalyst award (C8640/A23385

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed

Patients' intentions in primary care: Relationship to physical and psychological symptoms, and their perception by general practitioners

A series of three studies of consecutive primary care patients examined their intentions when visiting a general practitioner (GP). In study 1, a principal, components analysis of responses to a specially-devised symptom check-list was used to form component-based scales on which patients' physical symptoms were scored. Apart from a modest association of cold symptoms with seeking simple explanation, physical symptoms were unrelated to intentions. By contrast, the level of psychological symptoms correlated with the desire for support from the GP. In study 2 this result was replicated and shown to be unaffected by the amount of support which patients already experienced from family and friends. In study 3, GPs were found to be able to detect at better than chance level which patients desired support, but they were insensitive to other intentions. The results indicate that a technique for the quantification of patients' intentions permits the formal investigation of important questions concerning primary care consultations.general practitioner intentions social support symptoms