Search

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 facilit

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) but low rates of early detection. The majority of CRC is diagnosed through general practice, where lengthy diagnostic intervals are common. We investigated factors contributing to diagnostic delay in a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with CRC. METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Midland region and interviewed about their diagnostic experience using a questionnaire based on a modified Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and SYMPTOM questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population characteristics. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used to analyse factors influencing diagnostic intervals. RESULTS: Data from 176 patients were analysed, of which 65 (36.9%) experienced a general practitioner (GP) diagnostic interval of >120 days and 96 (54.5%) experienced a total diagnostic interval (TDI) > 120 days. Patients reporting rectal bleeding were less likely to experience a long TDI (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.78) and appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.59). Patients <60 were more likely to report a longer appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 3.32, 95% CI: 1.17-9.46). Female (OR, 2.19, 95% CI: 1.08-4.44) and Māori patients (OR, 3.18, 95% CI: 1.04-9.78) were more likely to experience a long GP diagnostic interval. CONCLUSION: NZ patients with CRC can experience long diagnostic intervals, attributed to patient and health system factors. Young patients, Māori, females, and patients experiencing change of bowel habit may be at particular risk. We need to increase symptom awareness of CRC for patients and GPs. Concentrated efforts are needed to ensure equity for Māori in access to screening, diagnostics, and treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

INTRODUCTION Over 3000 cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are diagnosed annually in New Zealand. The proportion of late stage diagnoses is higher than in similar countries, and highest in Māori and Pacific patients. Survival outcomes are poorer than for people in Australia and poor for Māori and Pacific peoples. A regional screening programme is not yet available to the entire target population (60-74 years). AIM This study reviews research investigating the pre-diagnostic pathway for CRC in New Zealand and how this may contribute to poorer outcomes. METHODS This was a scoping review of original articles examining the pre-diagnostic period for CRC published on the PubMed database between 2009 and 2019. Findings were interpreted within the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and in context of international evidence. RESULTS In total, 83 publications were assessed; eight studies were included. Studies were mainly older than 5 years, qualitative, and focused on screening. Facilitatory factors for the appraisal and help-seeking intervals increased CRC public awareness and the critical role of general practitioners. No specific facilitatory or inhibitory factors were identified for the diagnostic interval, but two studies found that time frames did not meet national and international targets. One study discovered longer pre-diagnostic intervals were associated with younger age at diagnosis. DISCUSSION Limited recent research has investigated the CRC pre-diagnostic pathways in NZ. Identification of facilitatory and inhibitory factors and implementation of appropriate strategies to improve them alongside the wider uptake of the screening programme may improve stage at diagnosis and outcomes for New Zealand CRC patients.

BACKGROUND: New Zealand has high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) but poor outcomes. Most patients with CRC are diagnosed following referral from general practice, where a general practitioner (GP) assesses symptoms according to national guidelines. All referred patients are then re-prioritised by the hospital system. The first objective of this study was to identify what proportion of patients referred by general practice to surgical/gastroenterology at Waikato District Health Board (DHB) had a colonoscopy. The second objective was to determine what proportion of these referrals have an underlying CRC and the factors associated with the likelihood of this diagnosis. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of e-referral data for patients aged 30-70+ who were referred from 75 general practices to general surgery, gastroenterology or direct to colonoscopy at Waikato DHB, 01 January 2015-31 December 2017. Primary and secondary outcome measures included the proportion and characteristics of patients who were having colonoscopy, and of those, who were diagnosed with CRC. Data were analysed using chi square and logistic regression. RESULTS: 6718/20648 (32.5%) patients had a colonoscopy and 372 (5.5%) of these were diagnosed with CRC. The probability of having CRC following a colonoscopy increased with age (p value < 0.001). Females (p value < 0.001), non-Māori (p value < 0.001), and patients with a high suspicion of cancer (HSCan) label originating from their GP were more likely to have a colonoscopy, while the odds ratio of Māori having a colonoscopy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73). The odds ratio of a CRC diagnosis following colonoscopy was 1.67 (95% CI 1.35-2.07) for men compared to women, and 2.34 (95% CI 1.70-3.22) for those with a GP HSCan label. Of the 585 patients referred with a GP HSCan, 423 (72.3%) were reprioritised by the hospital and 55 patients had their diagnosis unnecessarily delayed. CONCLUSIONS: If a GP refers a patient with an HSCan, and the patien

BACKGROUND: New Zealand (NZ) has a high incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and low rates of early diagnosis. With screening not yet nationwide, the majority of CRC is diagnosed through general practice. A good patient-general practitioner (GP) relationship can facilitate prompt diagnosis, but when there is a breakdown in this relationship, delays can occur. Delayed diagnosis of CRC in NZ receives a disproportionally high number of complaints directed against GPs, suggesting deficits in the patient-GP connection. We aimed to investigate patient-reported confidence and ratings of their GP following the diagnostic process. METHODS: This study is a mixed methods analysis of responses to a structured questionnaire and free text comments from patients newly diagnosed with CRC in the Midland region of NZ. A total of 195 patients responded to the structured questionnaire, and 113 patients provided additional free text comments. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study population and chi square analysis determined the statistical significance of factors possibly linked to delay. Free text comments were analysed using a thematic framework. RESULTS: Most participants rated their GP as 'Very good/Good' at communication with patients about their health conditions and involving them in decisions about their care, and 6.7% of participants rated their overall level of confidence and trust in their GP as 'Not at all'. Age, gender, ethnicity and a longer diagnostic interval were associated with lower confidence and trust. Free text comments were grouped in to three themes: 1. GP Interpersonal skills; (communication, listening, taking patient symptoms seriously), 2. Technical competence; (speed of referral, misdiagnoses, lack of physical examination), and 3. Organisation of general practice care; (appointment length, getting an appointment, continuity of care). CONCLUSIONS: Māori, females, and younger participants were more likely to report low confidence and trust in

BACKGROUND: New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer but low rates of early diagnosis. Due to a lack of understanding of the pre-diagnostic experience from the patient's perspective, it is necessary to investigate potential patient and health system factors that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Previous qualitative studies have discussed delays using The Model of Pathways to Treatment, but this has not been explored in the NZ context. This study aimed to understand the patient experience and perception of their general practitioner (GP) through the diagnostic process in the Waikato region of NZ. In particular, we sought to investigate potential barriers and facilitators that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. METHODS: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee. Twenty-eight participants, diagnosed with colorectal cancer, were interviewed about their experience. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using The Model of Pathways to Treatment framework (intervals: appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic). RESULTS: Participant appraisal of symptoms was a barrier to prompt diagnosis, particularly if symptoms were normalised, intermittent, or isolated in occurrence. Successful self-management techniques also resulted in delayed help-seeking. However if symptoms worsened, disruption to work and daily routines were important facilitators to seeking a GP consultation. Participants positively appraised GPs if they showed good technical competence and were proactive in investigating symptoms. Negative GP appraisals were associated with a lack of physical examinations and misdiagnosis, and left participants feeling dehumanised during the diagnostic process. However high levels of GP interpersonal competence could override poor technical competence, resulting in an overall positive experience, even if the cancer was diagnosed at an advanced