Search

Background: Lung cancer is often diagnosed at a late stage with high associated mortality. Timely diagnosis depends on timely referral to a respiratory specialist, however, in Canada, little is known about how patients move through primary care to get to a respiratory specialist. Accordingly, we aimed to identify and describe lung cancer pre-diagnostic pathways in primary care from first presentation to referral. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with primary lung cancer were recruited using consecutive sampling (n = 50) from a lung cancer center in Montr&eacute, al, Qu&eacute, bec. Data on healthcare service utilization in primary care were collected from chart reviews and structured patient interviews and analyzed using latent class analysis to identify groups of patients with similar pre-diagnostic pathways. Each group was described based on patient- and tumor-related characteristics and the sequence of utilization activities. Results: 68% of the patients followed a pathway where family physician (FP) visits were dominant (&ldquo, FP-centric&rdquo, ) and 32% followed a pathway where walk-in clinic and emergency department (ED) visits were dominant (&ldquo, ED-centric&rdquo, ). Time to referral in the FP group was double that of the ED group (45 days (IQR: 12&ndash, 111) vs. 22 (IQR: 5&ndash, 69)) with more advanced disease (65% vs. 50%). In the FP group, 29% of the patients saw their FP three times or more before being referred and 41% had an ED visit. Conclusions: Our findings may reflect the challenge of diagnosing lung cancer in primary care, missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis, and a lack of integration between primary and specialist care.

ObjectivesTo summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals.DesignA scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021.Eligibility and criteriaStudy participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Data extraction and synthesisWe summarised findings graphically and descriptively.ResultsFrom 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Background: The interval between suspected cancer and diagnosis for symptomatic patients is often fragmented, leading to diagnosis delays and increased patient stress. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining current initiatives across Canada that optimize early cancer diagnosis, with particular relevance for symptomatic patients. Methods: The national study included a document review and key informant interviews with purposefully recruited participants. Data were analyzed by two researchers using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-two participants from eight provinces participated in key informant interviews and reported on 17 early cancer diagnosis initiatives. Most initiatives (88%) were in early phases of implementation. Two patient-facing and eight provider/organization barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources) and five facilitators for implementation and sustainability were identified. Opportunities to improve early cancer diagnosis initiatives included building relationships with stakeholders, co-creating initiatives, developing initiatives for Indigenous and underserved populations, optimizing efficiency and sustainability, and standardizing metrics to evaluate impact. Conclusion: Early cancer diagnosis initiatives in Canada are in early implementation phases. Lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources pose a challenge to sustainability. We present opportunities for funders and policymakers to optimize the use and potential impact of early cancer diagnosis initiatives.

Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer. Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review. A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators, approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators. The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.

A hospitalist is the most responsible physician for inpatient care without the responsibility for care post discharge. In Canada, the majority of hospitalists are family physicians which raises concerns in the context of a shortage of family physicians in the community. In this commentary, advantages and disadvantages of the hospitalist model are discussed, with a focus on the necessity of family physician hospitalists. Finally, some challenges for maintaining the family physician hospitalist model going forward are presented.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-specific mortality in Canada, with the highest mortality observed in Québec. Incidence rates for lung cancer peak at 80–84 years of age with a median age at diagnosis of 71. Thus, the death toll due to lung cancer is concentrated among the elderly. The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is a dismal 17%. This is because lung cancers are often diagnosed at a late stage of disease when treatment options are limited. Interventions to reduce delays in diagnosis require an examination of diagnostic pathways and an understanding of the factors that influence these pathways. As patients in Canada must present in primary care before being referred to specialist care, the primary care interval within the larger diagnostic interval is a fundamental component of the diagnostic pathway. This study aims to examine lung cancer diagnostic trajectories in the primary care setting, and explore patient, disease, and health-care system factors that contribute to the diagnostic process. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design will be employed in two phases. Phase one will involve the identification of diagnostic pathways through latent profile analysis using clinical and administrative databases along with structured patient interviews, while phase two will use semi-structured patient interviews to explore contributing factors to late diagnosis. The findings from this study will provide an evidence base from which targeted interventions can be formed to reduce or eliminate unnecessary and avoidable delays in lung cancer diagnosis.

Background Survival in patients with bladder cancer has only moderately improved over the past 2 decades. A potential reason for this is nonadherence to clinical guidelines and best practice, leading to wide variations in care. Common quality indicators (QIs) are needed to quantify adherence to best practice and provide data for benchmarking and quality improvement. Objective To produce an evidence- and consensus-based list of QIs for the management of bladder cancer. Methods A modified Delphi method was used to develop the indicator list. Candidate indicators were extracted from the literature and rated by a 27-member Canadian expert panel in several rounds until consensus was reached on the final list of indicators. In rounds with numeric ratings, a frequency analysis was performed. Results A total of 86 indicators were rated, 52 extracted from the literature and 34 suggested by the panel. After iterative rounds of ratings and discussion, a final list of 60 QIs spanning several disciplines and phases of the cancer care continuum was developed. Conclusions This is the first study to comprehensively produce common QIs representing structure, process, and outcome measures in bladder cancer management. Though developed in Canada, these indicators can be used in other countries with slight modifications to track performance and improve care.

My father suffered from bipolar disorder. His illness placed an enormous strain on our relationship which, for the most part, was filled with turbulence. Although our family physician played an integral role in supporting my parents throughout the disease, I did not receive the same support and suffered as a consequence. In this essay, I describe my father's manic and major depressive episodes, as well as my emotions that resulted from the experience. Treating mental illness goes beyond just treating the patient but rather encompasses the family as a whole. My relationship with my father may have been different had I learned effective coping strategies through the support of my family physician.