Search

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the UK and a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis provides opportunities for intervention and improved survival. Significant event analysis (SEA) is a well-established quality improvement method for learning from new cancer diagnoses. Aim: To provide additional insights into diagnostic processes for colorectal cancer and to identify areas for improvement in patient care pathways. Design & setting: Fifty-three general practices across Pennine Lancashire, England, submitted one or more SEA reports as part of an incentivised scheme. Method: A standardised data collection form was used to collate learning points and recommendations for improvements. In total, 161 reports were analysed using an inductive framework analysis approach. Results: There was an overarching theme of building vigilance and collaboration between and within general practices and secondary care. The following four main sub-themes were also identified: education; individualised and flexible care; ownership and continuity; and communication. Conclusion: These findings provide additional insights into colorectal cancer pathways from a primary care perspective. Practices should be supported in developing protocols for assessment and follow-up of patients with varying presentations. Screening and access to investigations are paramount for improving early diagnosis; however, a flexible diagnostic approach is required according to the individual circumstances of each patient.

Background: Older housebound people are an under-researched group for whom achieving good primary health care can be resource intensive. Aims: To describe the characteristics and healthcare use of older (≥65 years) housebound people; explore clinician views on delivery of care to housebound people; and assess the feasibility of using a new network of healthcare professionals to deliver high quality research. Design & setting: Retrospective observational study of electronic GP records and clinician survey in England. Method: Clinical members of a new UK research network called the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) will collect the data. For part A, around 20 GP practices will be recruited and clinicians will identify 20 housebound and 20 non-housebound people, matched by age and gender (around 400 total in each group). Anonymised data will be collected on characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation decile), long-term conditions, prescribed medicines, quality of healthcare (via Quality Outcomes Framework targets), and continuity of care. Reports with benchmarked practice-level data will be provided to practices to identify areas for quality improvement and to enhance engagement. For part B, 2–4 clinicians will be recruited from around 50 practices in England (around 150 clinicians) to complete a survey about delivery of healthcare for housebound people. For part C, data will be collected to assess the feasibility of using the PACT network to deliver primary care research. Conclusion: Older housebound people are a neglected group both in terms of research and clinical care. Understanding the characteristics and use of primary healthcare of housebound people will help identify how to improve their care.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis. Aim: To understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. Design and setting: Qualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon. Method: Semi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs. Results: Twenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47–80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36–55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced. Conclusion: Prostate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screening is not recommended for prostate cancer in the UK. Asymptomatic men aged ≥50 years can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test following counselling on potential harms and benefits. There are areas of clinical uncertainty among GPs, resulting in the content and quality of counselling varying. Aim: To produce a consensus that can influence guidelines for UK primary care on the optimal use of the PSA test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection. Design and setting: Prostate Cancer UK facilitated a RAND/UCLA consensus. Method: Statements covering five topics were developed with a subgroup of experts. A panel of 15 experts in prostate cancer scored (round one) statements on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to nine (strongly agree). Panellists met to discuss statements before rescoring (round two). A lived experience panel of seven men scored a subset of statements with outcomes fed into the main panel. Results: Of the initial 94 statements reviewed by the expert panel, a final 48/85 (56%) achieved consensus. In the absence of screening, there was consensus on proactive approaches to initiate discussions about the PSA test with men who were at higher-than-average risk. Conclusion: Improvements in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway may have reduced some of the harms associated with PSA testing; however, several areas of uncertainty remain in relation to screening, including optimal PSA thresholds for referral and intervals for retesting. There is consensus on proactive approaches to testing in higher-than-average risk groups. This should prompt a review of current guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the UK and a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis provides opportunities for intervention and improved survival. Significant event analysis (SEA) is a well-established quality improvement method for learning from new cancer diagnoses. Aim: To provide additional insights into diagnostic processes for colorectal cancer and to identify areas for improvement in patient care pathways. Design & setting: Fifty-three general practices across Pennine Lancashire, England, submitted one or more SEA reports as part of an incentivised scheme. Method: A standardised data collection form was used to collate learning points and recommendations for improvements. In total, 161 reports were analysed using an inductive framework analysis approach. Results: There was an overarching theme of building vigilance and collaboration between and within general practices and secondary care. The following four main sub-themes were also identified: education; individualised and flexible care; ownership and continuity; and communication. Conclusion: These findings provide additional insights into colorectal cancer pathways from a primary care perspective. Practices should be supported in developing protocols for assessment and follow-up of patients with varying presentations. Screening and access to investigations are paramount for improving early diagnosis; however, a flexible diagnostic approach is required according to the individual circumstances of each patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results. Aim: To explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care. Design & setting: Retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK. Method: The Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model. Conclusion: PACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.

Background: Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases. Aim: To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. Design and setting: A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken. Method: Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing. Results: Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis. Conclusion: The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the effectiveness of the digital rectal examination (DRE) as a screening test for prostate cancer. It concludes that the DRE is not a useful screening test for prostate cancer and that other methods, such as multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), are more effective. The article also highlights the concerns and barriers associated with the DRE, including cultural stigma and the potential for triggering trauma in individuals who have experienced sexual abuse. The future of prostate cancer screening is discussed, with the need for further research and evidence to inform screening practices. Overall, the article suggests that the DRE should not be routinely used as a screening test for prostate cancer. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the possibility of preventing cancer and the emotional impact of a cancer diagnosis. It highlights the efforts of organizations like Cancer Research UK and publicly funded research programs to eliminate cancer. The article mentions advancements in understanding the genetic and environmental factors that contribute to cancer development, as well as new treatments like mRNA vaccines. While the incidence of cancer is predicted to rise in the future, there are innovations such as the HPV vaccine and chemoprevention medications that offer hope for reducing cancer rates. The article concludes by acknowledging that a world without cancer may be a pipedream, but it is a vision that can be realized through innovation, political will, and determination. The article also briefly mentions other topics covered in the journal edition, including a trial on aspirin for cancer prevention and updates on cancer diagnostic tests. [Extracted from the article]

Sheppard and colleagues developed and validated STRATIFY-AKI; a risk prediction model for acute kidney injury in primary care patients prescribed antihypertensive medication, which could help identify patients at high risk. While the lifetime risk of cancer for adults is 1 in 2, at a primary care level diagnoses are a relatively uncommon event. [Extracted from the article]