Quality of the diagnostic process in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of bladder or kidney cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: In urological cancers, sex disparity exists for survival, with women doing worse than men. Suboptimal evaluation of presenting symptoms may contribute. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review examining factors affecting the quality of the diagnostic process of patients presenting with symptoms of bladder or kidney cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 13 June 2019. ELIGIBLE CRITERIA: We focused on one of the six domains of quality of healthcare: timeliness, and examined the quality of the diagnostic process more broadly, by assessing whether guideline-concordant history, examination, tests and referrals were performed. Studies describing the factors that affect the timeliness or quality of the assessment of urinary tract infections, haematuria and lower urinary tract symptoms in the context of bladder or kidney cancer, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. Due to the heterogeneity of study design and outcomes, the results could not be pooled. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: 28 studies met review criteria, representing 583 636 people from 9 high-income countries. Studies were based in primary care (n=8), specialty care (n=12), or both (n=8). Up to two-thirds of patients with haematuria received no further evaluation in the 6 months after their initial visit. Urinary tract infections, nephrolithiasis and benign prostatic conditions before cancer diagnosis were associated with diagnostic delay. Women were more likely to experience diagnostic delay than men. Patients who first saw a urologist were less likely to experience delayed evaluation and cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Women, and patients with non-cancerous urological diagnoses just prior to their cancer diagnosis, were more likely to experience lower quality diagnostic processes. Risk prediction tools, and improving guideline ambiguity, may improve outcomes and reduce sex disparity in survival for these cancers.Wellcome doctoral fellowship funde

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

This study was supported by the CanTest Collaborative (funded by Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385). No funding or sponsorship was received for the publication of this article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Improving transitional patient safety: research protocol of the Transitional Incident Prevention Programme

__Introduction:__ Patient transitions between primary and hospital care include referral, discharge, and simultaneous care by the outpatient clinic and the general practitioner (GP). Research on referrals and discharge shows that safety incidents in these transitions are common. We developed the multifaceted Transitional Incident Prevention Programme (TIPP), which aims to improve transitional patient safety preventing future incidents. With this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the TIPP programme on transitional patient safety, and to evaluate its implementation and the acceptance in GP-practices and hospitals. __Methods:__ The TIPP intervention study is a controlled before and after study combined with qualitative methods. The study will be conducted in both rural and urban settings including three hospitals, together with referring primary care practices. The TIPP intervention is aimed at three aspects of transitional safety: 1) Healthcare process, 2) Transitional patient safety culture, and 3) Patient participation. Together with the participating hospital departments, GPs and patients, we will develop a tailored improvement programme, taking into account the different context of each setting. __Discussion:__ The purpose of this protocol paper is to present and discuss the research design and methodology of the TIPP intervention

Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care

Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Primary care professionals can play an important role in both prevention and early detection of CRC. Most CRCs are attributed to modifiable lifestyle factors, which can be addressed within primary care, and promotion of population-based screening programmes can aid early cancer detection in asymptomatic patients. Primary care professionals have a vital role in clinically assessing patients presenting with symptoms that may indicate cancer, as most patients with CRC first present with symptoms. These assessments are often challenging—many of the symptoms of CRC are non-specific and commonly occur in patients presenting with non-malignant disease. The range of options for investigating symptomatic patients in primary care is rapidly growing. Simple tests, such as faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), are now being used to guide decisions around referral for more invasive tests, such as colonoscopy, while direct access to specialist investigations is also becoming more common. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) which calculate cancer risk based on symptomatology, patient characteristics and test results can provide an additional resource to guide decisions on further investigation. This article explores the challenges of CRC prevention and detection from the primary care perspective, discusses current evidence-based approaches for CRC detection used in primary care (with examples from UK guidelines), and highlights emerging research which may likely alter practice in the future

Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines

Abstract: Background: Women with ovarian cancer can present with a variety of symptoms and signs, and an increasing range of tests are available for their investigation. A number of international guidelines provide advice for the initial assessment of possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women. We systematically identified and reviewed the consistency and quality of these documents. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, guideline-specific databases and professional organisation websites were searched in March 2018 for relevant clinical guidelines, consensus statements and clinical pathways, produced by professional or governmental bodies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised documents using the Appraisal for Guidelines and Research Evaluation 2 (AGREEII) tool. Results: Eighteen documents from 11 countries in six languages met selection criteria. Methodological quality varied with two guidance documents achieving an AGREEII score ≥ 50% in all six domains and 10 documents scoring ≥50% for “Rigour of development” (range: 7–96%). All guidance documents provided advice on possible symptoms of ovarian cancer, although the number of symptoms included in documents ranged from four to 14 with only one symptom (bloating/abdominal distension/increased abdominal size) appearing in all documents. Fourteen documents provided advice on physical examinations but varied in both the examinations they recommended and the physical signs they included. Fifteen documents provided recommendations on initial investigations. Transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound and the serum biomarker CA125 were the most widely advocated initial tests. Five distinct testing strategies were identified based on the number of tests and the order of testing advocated: ‘single test’, ‘dual testing’, ‘sequential testing’, ‘multiple testing options’ and ‘no testing’. Conclusions: Recommendations on the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women vary considerably between international guidance documents. This variation could contribute to differences in the way symptomatic women are assessed and investigated between countries. Greater research is needed to evaluate the assessment and testing approaches advocated by different guidelines and their impact on ovarian cancer detection

Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients' records.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record review study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Combined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs. OUTCOMES: To assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3-28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen's kappa -0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs. CONCLUSION: The reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS; grant number 320698), and Achmea Healthcare (grant number Z415)

Characteristics of patients in platform C19, a COVID-19 research database combining primary care electronic health record and patient reported information

Background Data to better understand and manage the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently needed. However, there are gaps in information stored within even the best routinely-collected electronic health records (EHR) including test results, remote consultations for suspected COVID-19, shielding, physical activity, mental health, and undiagnosed or untested COVID-19 patients. Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Singapore and Optimum Patient Care (OPC) UK established Platform C19, a research database combining EHR data and bespoke patient questionnaire. We describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, patient behavior, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using data within Platform C19. Methods EHR data from Platform C19 were extracted from 14 practices across UK participating in the OPC COVID-19 Quality Improvement program on a continuous, monthly basis. Starting 7th August 2020, consenting patients aged 18–85 years were invited in waves to fill an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were summarized using all data available up to 22nd January 2021. Findings From 129,978 invitees, 31,033 responded. Respondents were predominantly female (59.6%), white (93.5%), and current or ex-smokers (52.6%). Testing for COVID-19 was received by 23.8% of respondents, of which 7.9% received positive results. COVID-19 symptoms lasted ≥4 weeks in 19.5% of COVID-19 positive respondents. Up to 39% respondents reported a negative impact on questions regarding their mental health. Most (67%-76%) respondents with asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), diabetes, heart, or kidney disease reported no change in the condition of their diseases. Interpretation Platform C19 will enable research on key questions relating to COVID-19 pandemic not possible using EHR data alone

Validation of a questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety climate indicated differences in transitional patient safety climate between primary and secondary care

Objectives: This study describes the development and validation of the TRAnsitional patient safety Climate Evaluation (TRACE) questionnaire, measuring transitional patient safety climate from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. Patient safety climate reflects the professionals' perception of the organizational patient safety culture. Study Design and Setting: In the development of the TRACE, we adjusted existing questionnaires on patient safety culture. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Internal consistency and correlations between factors and a global transitional patient safety rating were calculated. Results: In total, 162 questionnaires were completed (response 23%; general practice: N = 97, hospital physicians: N = 65). Analysis of all respondents did not provide an interpretable factor solution. However, the EFA on the results of hospital physicians revealed four relevant factors: (1) collaboration, (2) speaking up, (3) communication on transitional incidents and improvement measures, and (4) transitional patient safety management. The internal consistency of these factors was good for hospital respondents (0.71-0.87) and fair to acceptable for general practices' respondents (0.63-0.72). Conclusion: Although the TRACE questionnaire did not provide a solid factor structure in a combined sample of general practice and hospital respondents, the factors found reliable in hospital setting had acceptable reliability in general practice setting

Validation of a questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety climate indicated differences in transitional patient safety climate between primary and secondary care

Objectives: This study describes the development and validation of the TRAnsitional patient safety Climate Evaluation (TRACE) questionnaire, measuring transitional patient safety climate from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. Patient safety climate reflects the professionals' perception of the organizational patient safety culture. Study Design and Setting: In the development of the TRACE, we adjusted existing questionnaires on patient safety culture. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Internal consistency and correlations between factors and a global transitional patient safety rating were calculated. Results: In total, 162 questionnaires were completed (response 23%; general practice: N = 97, hospital physicians: N = 65). Analysis of all respondents did not provide an interpretable factor solution. However, the EFA on the results of hospital physicians revealed four relevant factors: (1) collaboration, (2) speaking up, (3) communication on transitional incidents and improvement measures, and (4) transitional patient safety management. The internal consistency of these factors was good for hospital respondents (0.71-0.87) and fair to acceptable for general practices' respondents (0.63-0.72). Conclusion: Although the TRACE questionnaire did not provide a solid factor structure in a combined sample of general practice and hospital respondents, the factors found reliable in hospital setting had acceptable reliability in general practice setting