Search

Patients with psychiatric disorders are at risk of experiencing suboptimal cancer diagnostics and treatment. This study investigates how this patient group perceives the cancer diagnostic process in general practice. Cross-sectional study using questionnaire and register data. General practice in Denmark. Patients diagnosed with cancer in late 2016 completed a questionnaire about their experiences with their general practitioner (GP) in the cancer diagnostic process (n = 3411). Information on pre-existing psychiatric disorders was obtained from register data on psychiatric hospital contacts and primary care treated psychiatric disorders through psychotropic medications. Logistic regression was used to analyse the association between psychiatric disorders and the patients' experiences. Patients' experiences, including cancer worry, feeling being taken seriously, and the perceived time between booking an appointment and the first GP consultation. Box 1. Included survey items on the patients' experiences Items Response categories Combined in analysis Total respondents, n (%) Were you worried that you might have cancer when consulting a GP for the first time? Very much Very much/A great deal 1348 (44.6%)/909 (30.7%) A great deal A little A little/No 396 (13.1%)/334 (11.1%) No I do not know Omitted in analysis 36 (1.2%) Did you tell the GP about your concerns? No No 878 (44.6%) Yes Yes 1089 (55.4%) Did you feel taken seriously when consulting the GP for symptoms? No, not at all No, not at all/Not so much 135 (4.5%)/151 (5.0%) Not so much Yes, to some degree Yes, to some degree/Yes, very much 354 (11.8%)/2258 (75.0%) Yes, very much Not relevant for me Omitted in analysis 111 (3.7%) Are you confident that the GP made the best possible effort before your cancer was diagnosed? No, not at all No, not at all/Not so much 142 (4.3%)/192 (5.8%) Not so much Yes, to some degree Yes, to some degree/Yes, very much 376 (11.3%)/2,570 (77.3%) Yes, very much I was not in contact with [the GP] Omitted in analysis 45 (1.3%) How many times did you consult your GP before being referred to a medical specialist or hospital for diagnostic investigation? One time One time to three times 2212 (73.0%)/659 (21.7%) Two-three times Four times or more Four times or more 136 (4.5%) Was not referred Omitted in analysis 22 (0.7%) Was it clear to you what would happen after your visit(s) to your GP (e.g. whether you were to contact a medical specialist or would be contacted by the hospital staff)? Not at all Not at all/Not so much 164 (5.5)/118 (3.9%) Not so much Yes, to some degree Yes, to some degree/Yes, very much 471 (15.7%)/2210 (73.6) Yes, very much Not relevant for me Omitted in analysis 39 (1.3%) How do you assess the time interval from your first contact to the GP (when you called or used the online system to book an appointment) until the first time you were seen/examined by the GP? The time interval was suitable The time interval was suitable 2210 (79.5%) It took too long It took too long 209 (7.5%) It was too short It was too short 232 (8.35%) Not relevant for me Omitted in analysis 128 (4.6%) How do you assess the time interval from the first time you were seen/examined by the GP until referred to a medical specialist or hospital for diagnostic investigation? The time interval was suitable The time interval was suitable 2163 (76.5%) It took too long It took too long 313 (11.1%) It was too short It was too short 282 (10.0%) Not relevant for me Omitted in analysis 68 (2.4%) A total of 13% of patients had an indication of a psychiatric disorder. This group more often perceived the time interval as too short between the first booking of a consultation and the first GP consultation. Patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders were more likely to worry about cancer at the first presentation and to share this concern with their GP compared with patients without psychiatric disorders. We observed no statistically significant association between patients with psychiatric disorders and perceiving the waiting time to referral from general practice, being taken seriously, trust in the GP's abilities, and the patients' knowledge of the process following the GP referral. The patients' experiences with the cancer diagnostic process in general practice did not vary largely between patients with and without psychiatric disorders. Worrying about cancer may be a particular concern for patients with primary care treated psychiatric disorders. It is unknown how patients with psychiatric disorders perceive the cancer diagnostic process in general practice. This study found an association between having a psychiatric disorder and more often perceiving the time interval as too short between the first booking of a consultation and the first GP consultation. An association was found between having a primary care treated psychiatric disorder and being worried about cancer and more often sharing these concerns with the GP. Experiences with the cancer diagnostic process in general practice did not differ between patients with a hospital treated psychiatric disorder and patients with no indication of psychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To characterise and explore the development in the number and content of urine samples sent from general practice in the North Denmark Region to the Department of Clinical Microbiology (DCM) at Aalborg University Hospital during a five-year period. A register-based study. General practice. Urine samples received at DCM, Aalborg University Hospital from general practice between 2017 and 2022. Number and content of urine samples. A total of 255,271 urine samples from general practice were received at DCM, with 76.1% being from female patients. Uropathogens were identified in 43.0% of the samples. During the five-year period, a 23.0% increase in the number of urine samples per person (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.21–1.25) was observed. A slight increase in the proportion of positive cultures (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05) was seen. No notable change in the patient population (age, gender) was observed. Overall, Escherichia coli was the most identified uropathogen (60.4%) followed by Klebsiella spp. (8.7%) and Enterococcus spp. (7.7%). Distribution of the various uropathogens differed slightly depending on patient gender and age, importantly E. coli was less frequently observed in males aged >65 years. During the past five years an increasing amount of urine cultures have been requested at DCM from general practice. Importantly, the cause(s) of this increasing demand needs to be explored further in future studies. Appropriate diagnostics of urinary tract infections can reduce the use of antibiotics in general practice. From 2017 to 2022 a 23% increase per person in requested urine cultures from general practice was observed. A slight increase in positive cultures was found, but no notable change in the patient population (age, gender) was seen. E. coli was the most identified uropathogen independent of gender and age, however, the proportion differed within the various groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the number of contacts to general practice across 11 types of abdominal cancer in the 12 months preceding a diagnosis. Nationwide register study. Danish general practice. Forty-seven thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight patients diagnosed with oesophageal, gastric, colon, rectal, liver, gall bladder/biliary tract, pancreatic, endometrial, ovarian, kidney or bladder cancer in 2014–2018. Monthly contact rates and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of daytime face-to-face, email and telephone consultations in general practice across different abdominal cancers. The analyses were conducted for each sex and adjusted for age, comorbidity, marital status and education. Compared to women with colon cancer, women with rectal cancer had the lowest number of contacts to general practice (IRR 12 months pre-diagnostic (IRR–12)=0.86 (95% CI: 0.80–0.92); IRR 1 month pre-diagnostic (IRR–1)=0.85 (95% CI: 0.81–0.89)), whereas women with liver (IRR–12=1.23 (95% CI: 1.09–1.38); IRR–1=1.11 (95% CI: 1.02–1.20)), pancreatic (IRR–12=1.08 (95% CI: 1.01–1.16); IRR1=1.52 (95% CI: 1.45–1.58)) and kidney cancer (IRR–12=1.14 (95% CI: 1.05–1.23); IRR–1=1.18 (95% CI: 1.12–1.24)) had the highest number of contacts. Men showed similar patterns. From seven months pre-diagnostic, an increase in contacts to general practice was seen in bladder cancer patients, particularly women, compared to colon cancer. Using pre-diagnostic contact rates unveiled that liver, pancreatic, kidney and bladder cancers had a higher and more prolonged use of general practice. This may suggest missed opportunities of diagnosing cancer. Thus, pre-diagnostic contact rates may indicate symptoms and signs for cancer that need further research to ensure early cancer diagnosis. The majority of cancer patients attend their general practitioner (GP) before diagnosis; however, little is known about the use of general practice across different abdominal cancers. This study suggests that a potential exists to detect some abdominal cancers at an earlier point in time. The contact patterns in general practice seem to be shaped by the degree of diagnostic difficulty. GPs may need additional diagnostic opportunities to identify abdominal cancer in symptomatic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse healthcare utilisation in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the 12 months preceding a diagnosis of CRC recurrence. Methods: This register‐based cohort study included curatively treated survivors of CRC diagnosed in 2008–2018. Survivors with CRC recurrence were matched 1:5 with recurrence‐free survivors. We estimated the monthly frequency of healthcare utilisation before the recurrence diagnosis and a corresponding index date assigned to the matched population. A regression model was used to compare healthcare utilisation between groups. Results: We included 3045 survivors with recurrence and 15,225 recurrence‐free survivors. At study entry, both groups had on average one contact per month to general practice. Compared with recurrence‐free survivors, survivors with recurrence had more contacts to general practice from 10 months before the diagnosis and more haemoglobin measurements from 4 months before the diagnosis. They had more contacts to hospitals and follow‐up clinics from 7 months before the diagnosis and more diagnostic investigations from 2 months before the diagnosis. Conclusion: General practitioners have regular contact with CRC survivors and are involved in detecting recurrence. The increased number of contacts in the months before the rise in diagnostic investigations indicates an opportunity to expedite referral to diagnostics and the diagnosis of CRC recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anaemia can be a pointer of underlying severe disease, including undiagnosed malignancy. Subsequent blood tests are essential to classify the anaemia into subtypes and to facilitate targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis of underlying disease. We aimed to describe and classify anaemia based on laboratory tests from patients with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice. An additional aim was to analyse associations between patient characteristics and unclassified anaemia (not classifiable according to an algorithm). Population-based cross-sectional study. Danish general practice. A total of 62,731 patients (age: 40–90 years) with new-onset anaemia were identified in Danish laboratory information systems and nationwide registries, and data were obtained for 2014–2018. We measured the proportion of patients classified into subtypes of anaemia based on blood tests requested by general practitioners within 31 days of the anaemia index date. Of the 62,731 patients with new-onset anaemia, we identified unclassified anaemia in 78.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3–80.5) of men and 65.1% (CI: 63.4–66.9) of women. The likelihood of unclassified anaemia increased with age, increasing comorbidity and decreasing severity of anaemia. The majority of patients with new-onset anaemia could not be classified through a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests, which highlights a potential missed opportunity for diagnosis. Standardised laboratory testing of patients with anaemia is warranted to ensure adequate follow-up and early detection of underlying severe disease. Anaemia can be a sign of malignancy, and anaemia classification is an important step in the diagnosis of underlying disorders. The majority of patients with anaemia could not be classified according to a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests. Some patient characteristics were associated with a high risk of unclassified anaemia: high age, high comorbidity, and severe anaemia. Standardised laboratory testing in patients with anaemia is needed to inform targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Detection of cancer in general practice is challenging because symptoms are diverse. Even so-called alarm symptoms have low positive predictive values of cancer. Nevertheless, appropriate referral is crucial. As 85% of cancer patients initiate their cancer diagnostic pathway in general practice, a Continuing Medical Education meeting (CME-M) in early cancer diagnosis was launched in Denmark in 2012. We aimed to investigate the effect of the CME-M on the primary care interval, patient contacts with general practice and use of urgent cancer referrals. Methods: A before-after study was conducted in the Central Denmark Region included 396 general practices, which were assigned to one of eight geographical clusters. Practices were invited to participate in the CME-M with three-week intervals between clusters. Based on register data, we calculated urgent referral rates and patient contacts with general practice before referral. Information about primary care intervals was collected by requesting general practitioners to complete a one-page form for each urgent referral during an 8-month period around the time of the CME-Ms. CME-M practices were compared with non-participating reference practices by analysing before-after differences. Results: Forty percent of all practices participated in the CME-M. There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of total contacts with general practice from urgently referred patients in the month preceding the referral and an increase in the proportion of patients who waited 14 days or more in general practice from the reported date of symptom presentation to the referral date from before to after the CME-M in the CME-M group compared to the reference group. Conclusions: We found a reduced number of total patient contacts with general practice within the month preceding an urgent referral and an increase in the reported primary care intervals of urgently referred patients in the CME-M group. The trend towards higher urgent referral rates and longer primary care intervals may suggest raised awareness of unspecific cancer symptoms, which could cause the GP to register an earlier date of first symptom presentation. The standardised CME-M may contribute to optimising the timing and the use of urgent cancer referral. Trial registration: NCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered, 1/29/2014 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuing medical education (CME) in earlier cancer diagnosis was launched in Denmark in 2012 as part of the Danish National Cancer Plan. The CME programme was introduced to improve the recognition among general practitioners (GPs) of symptoms suggestive of cancer and improve the selection of patients requiring urgent investigation. This study aims to explore the effect of CME on GP knowledge about cancer diagnosis, attitude towards own role in cancer detection, self-assessed readiness to investigate and cancer risk assessment of urgently referred patients. Methods: We conducted a before-after study in the Central Denmark Region including 831 GPs assigned to one of eight geographical clusters. All GPs were invited to participate in the CME at three-week intervals between clusters. A questionnaire focusing on knowledge, attitude and clinical vignettes was sent to each GP one month before and seven months after the CME. The GPs were also asked to assess the risk of cancer in patients urgently referred to a fast-track cancer pathway during an eight-month period. CME-participating GPs were compared with reference (non-participating) GPs by analysing before-after differences. Results: One quarter of all GPs participated in the CME. 202 GPs (24.3%) completed both the baseline and the follow-up questionnaires. 532 GPs (64.0%) assessed the risk of cancer before the CME and 524 GPs (63.1%) assessed the risk of cancer after the CME in urgently referred consecutive patients. Compared to the reference group, CME-participating GPs statistically significantly improved their understanding of a rational probability of diagnosing cancer among patients urgently referred for suspected cancer, increased their knowledge of cancer likelihood in a 50-year-old referred patient and lowered the assessed risk of cancer in urgently referred patients. Conclusions: The standardised CME lowered the GP-assessed cancer risk of urgently referred patients, whereas the effect on knowledge about cancer diagnosis and attitude towards own role in cancer detection was limited. No effect was found on the GPs' readiness to investigate. CME may be effective for optimising the interpretation of cancer symptoms and thereby improve the selection of patients for urgent cancer referral. Trial registration: NCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered, 1/29/2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Specialised follow‐up care after cancer treatment is changing towards increased involvement of general practice. To ensure timely detection of new cancer events, knowledge is warranted on the timing of cancer recurrence (CR) and second primary cancer (SPC), including risk factors for CR. Methods: This population‐based register study included 67,092 patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma, bladder, lung, ovarian, endometrial, colorectal and breast cancer in Denmark in 2008–2016. The time from primary cancer to CR or SPC and risk factors for prolonged time to CR were analysed and stratified on sex and primary cancer type. Results: Cancer recurrence proportions ranged from 6% to 35%. The risk of CR increased profoundly within the first 3 years and then levelled off, except for breast cancer. A total of 3%–6% of patients had SPC, with monotonously increasing cumulative incidence proportions. Besides primary tumour characteristics, lower educational level, living alone and comorbidity were associated with earlier CR. For example, in female malignant melanoma, HRs and 95% confidence intervals were 0.47 (0.37–0.61) for high educational level, 1.40 (1.16–1.68) for living alone and 2.38 (1.53–3.70) for high comorbidity. Conclusion: The results may inform stratified risk assessment in decision of frequency, location and duration of post‐cancer follow‐up care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]