Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice

Matthew J Ridd, Diana L Santos Ferreira, Alan A Montgomery, Chris Salisbury and William Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (634): e305-e311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X684829
Matthew J Ridd
Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Consultant senior lecturer in Primary Health Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diana L Santos Ferreira
Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Research assistant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan A Montgomery
Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Roles: Professor of medical statistics and clinical trials
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Salisbury
Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Professor of primary care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Hamilton
University of Exeter, Exeter.
Roles: Professor of primary care diagnostics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Continuity of care may affect the diagnostic process in cancer but there is little research.

Aim To estimate associations between patient–doctor continuity and time to diagnosis and referral of three common cancers.

Design and setting Retrospective cohort study in general practices in England.

Method This study used data from the General Practice Research Database for patients aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Relevant cancer symptoms or signs were identified up to 12 months before diagnosis. Patient–doctor continuity (fraction-of-care index adjusted for number of consultations) was calculated up to 24 months before diagnosis. Time ratios (TRs) were estimated using accelerated failure time regression models.

Results Patient–doctor continuity in the 24 months before diagnosis was associated with a slightly later diagnosis of colorectal (time ratio [TR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.01 to 1.02) but not breast (TR = 1.00, 0.99 to 1.01) or lung cancer (TR = 1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Secondary analyses suggested that for colorectal and lung cancer, continuity of doctor before the index consultation was associated with a later diagnosis but continuity after the index consultation was associated with an earlier diagnosis, with no such effects for breast cancer. For all three cancers, most of the delay to diagnosis occurred after referral.

Conclusion Any effect for patient–doctor continuity appears to be small. Future studies should compare investigations, referrals, and diagnoses in patients with and without cancer who present with possible cancer symptoms or signs; and focus on ‘difficult to diagnose’ types of cancer.

  • cancer
  • continuity of care
  • diagnosis
  • general practice
  • patient-doctor continuity
  • symptoms

INTRODUCTION

Continuity of care is a core value in general practice. It is a multifaceted concept, but one key aspect valued by patients is continuity of doctor; being able to see the same GP over time for multiple problems.1 In the UK, a combination of changes in the way primary care services are organised and doctors work means that patient–doctor continuity has been eroded.2 Seeing the same doctor is associated with higher patient satisfaction but evidence that it makes a difference to patient outcomes is weak.3,4

The value of being able to see the same doctor appears to depend on the nature of the problem.5 From the doctor’s perspective, familiarity with the patient may be especially helpful when dealing with new or ‘unspecified’ symptoms, such as fatigue.6 This may be particularly relevant to the diagnosis of cancers in primary care, where in the initial stages of the disease symptoms may be very non-specific and/or may be explained by coexisting physical or psychological conditions. Conversely, it is possible that familiarity with the patient and their problems may mean doctors misattribute new complaints to ongoing problems or personality traits, leading to delayed or missed diagnoses.5,7

Surprisingly, there is little research published on the influence of patient–doctor continuity on the diagnostic process in primary care, and even less in the field of cancer diagnostics.4 Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between patient–doctor continuity in general practice and time to diagnosis of lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in adults.

METHOD

Study data

Data were used from the General Practice Research Database, now known as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2009 inclusive. General practices contribute to the database from around the UK and adhere to stringent data quality recording standards.8

Patients had an incident breast, colorectal, or lung cancer; were ≥40 years at diagnosis; and had ≥1 year of prior registration data. These cancers were chosen because they are common and GP personal knowledge of the patient may be more (for example, fatigue in colorectal or lung cancer) or less useful (for example, breast cancer, most commonly presenting with a breast lump). Patients were excluded if they had an in-situ cancer, their recorded date of death was before or the same as their diagnosis date, or they were asymptomatic (no recorded cancer symptom/sign) in the 12 months before diagnosis. Analyses were further restricted to consultations where symptoms or signs were recorded in consultations with GPs (partner, salaried, registrar, or locum) in relevant types of encounter (mainly surgery, telephone, or home visit). The few male patients in the breast cancer dataset were also excluded.

How this fits in

Continuity of care is a core value in general practice yet, nowadays, patients are less likely to see the same doctor. It is unknown whether seeing the same doctor leads to a faster or slower diagnosis of cancer among patients who present with symptoms. Overall, this study found that any effect of patient–doctor continuity on time to diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer was small. While GPs should be cautious not to dismiss potentially significant symptoms or signs among patients they know well, it may be prudent for doctors to personally follow-up patients with ‘low-risk but not no-risk’ symptoms.

Relevant symptoms and signs (classified as high-risk or low-risk) for each cancer (Table 1) were based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer.9 These were updated by reference to recent systematic reviews on colorectal cancer10 and breast cancer;11 and a case–control study of lung cancer.12 Symptoms and signs were identified using Read Codes only, which were independently identified and agreed by the GPs on the team. High-risk took precedence over low-risk symptoms or signs where both were recorded in the index consultation. The presence or absence of risk factors for each type of cancer were also identified: family history (breast cancer); ulcerative colitis (colorectal cancer); and current/ex-smoker or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung cancer). Referrals, appropriate to each cancer, were identified for ‘definitive’ investigations (for example colonoscopy for colorectal cancer) or secondary care opinion (for example respiratory physician for lung cancer).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

High-risk and low-risk cancer symptoms/signs for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer

The list of diagnostic codes used has been developed previously as part of DISCOVERY (http://discovery-programme.org/; a 5-year programme of work designed to improve the diagnosis of cancer) and has supported several publications.13–18 Patient multimorbidity was quantified by a simple count of 17 chronic diseases included in the clinical domain of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, as at 2007–2008, using methods described previously.19

Patient–doctor continuity

The index consultation (and hence the index doctor) was defined as the first consultation in the 12 months before diagnosis when a relevant cancer symptom or sign was recorded by a GP. Patients needed at least one other contact with the index GP in the 24 months before diagnosis to be included in the study.

Patient–doctor continuity was summarised using the fraction-of-care (f) index, which is the proportion of doctor encounters during a continuity defining period that were made to the current provider (that is, the index GP). Because f is sensitive to utilisation levels (that is, people who visit infrequently), it was adjusted for the number of consultations in all analyses (f′). In the statistical models, f′ was multiplied by 10 so that the regression coefficients represent the change in outcome associated with a 10% difference in continuity.

In the primary analysis the effect of patient–doctor continuity was explored during the whole 24 months before diagnosis. In secondary analyses, the intervals were examined separately before the index consultation and after the index consultation.

Outcomes

This study investigated the effect of patient–doctor continuity on time to diagnosis and time to referral, expressed as the number of days from the first recorded sign or symptom of cancer until date of cancer diagnosis or date of referral.

Time to diagnosis (or diagnostic interval) was chosen as the primary end-point because the date of diagnosis is usually easily determined; previous studies have shown an effect of organisational change (that is, introduction of ‘2-week wait’ system) on this interval;20 and it allows the findings to be easily compared with most other studies.21

Time to referral (to relevant secondary care specialty or for definitive investigation) was explored as a secondary end-point because events after the referral (which are within the control of secondary care rather than primary care) may cause delays between referral and diagnosis. Where referral was made on the same day as the index consultation (around one-third of patients), 1 day was added so that the statistical model could be fitted.

Analysis

All analyses were carried out using Stata (version 12). First, a simple descriptive analysis was undertaken to examine the characteristics of participating patients, doctors, and their practices; patient–doctor consultation rates; number and type of symptoms/signs at the index consultation; and patient–doctor continuity before and after the index consultation.

Next, regression models (accelerated-failure time) were constructed to examine univariable and multivariable associations between patient–doctor continuity and time to diagnosis and time to referral. The accelerated failure time model is a parametric model that provides an alternative to proportional hazards models commonly used in time-to-event analyses.22 It allows the derivation of a time ratio, which is more readily interpretable than a ratio of two hazards generated by other survival analysis approaches: a time ratio >1 for the covariate implies that it prolongs the time to the event, while a time ratio <1 indicates that an earlier event is more likely.23 Plots were constructed to check model assumptions. Log-normal, log-logistic, generalised gamma, and Weibull distributions were used to represent the survival data. The Akaike information criterion measure of the goodness of fit of an estimated statistical model was used to select the best model.

Alternative models for time to referral and time to diagnosis, using the different continuity defining periods, were constructed. The following covariates were included in each model: patient age, sex, multimorbidity, and cancer-specific risk factor(s); index doctor sex and status; index consultation type; and number of symptoms/signs at index consultation. Interactions between patient–doctor continuity and symptom/sign type (high/low risk) were added to the models, but none with a likelihood ratio test <0.05 were found. The extent of clustering by practice was estimated and adjusted for as necessary in all models.

RESULTS

Characteristics of participants and patients’ consultations

Table 2 shows the initial and final number of patients (with a relevant cancer, symptoms/signs in the 12 months prior to diagnosis, and qualifying consultations) analysed in each cancer dataset. The characteristics of participants and patients’ consultations are given in Table 3. With respect to cancer risk factors, 81 (2.7%) of patients with breast cancer had a family history of breast cancer; 91 (1.2%) of patients with colorectal cancer had ulcerative colitis; and 1845 (22.7%) of patients with lung cancer had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with about one-third being current smokers (n = 2639, 32.4%) and one-half ex-smokers (n = 4079, 50.1%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Construction of cancer datasets for analysis

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Characteristics of participants and patients’ consultations

Patients with breast cancer were more likely to present initially with at least one high-risk symptom or sign (n = 2797, 94.2%) than those with subsequent colorectal (n = 2528, 34.2%) or lung (n = 636, 7.8%) cancer diagnoses (Table 3); and (n = 2559, 86.6%) of patients with breast cancer were referred on the same day as the index consultation.

Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer

The crude and adjusted associations with time to diagnosis for patient–doctor continuity, symptoms/signs and patient, doctor, and consultation characteristics for the three different cancers are shown in Table 4. There was no evidence of any association between patient–doctor continuity and time to diagnosis for breast cancer (adjusted TRbreast = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.01, P = 0.90) or lung cancer (adjusted TRlung = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.00, P = 0.33). The adjusted TR of 1.01 (95% CI = 1.01 to 1.02, P<0.01) for colorectal cancer suggests there was a 1% increase in the diagnostic interval for every 10% increase in continuity. The factor most consistently associated with time to diagnosis across the different cancers was a high-risk symptom/sign being recorded at the index consultation (adjusted TRbreast = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.39, P<0.01; TRcolorectal = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.75, P<0.01; TRlung = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.74, P<0.01).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Crude and adjusted associations between patient–doctor continuity and time to diagnosis of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer

Further analysis examined whether there was a relationship between patient–doctor continuity before or after the index consultation and time to diagnosis (Table 5). There was no evidence of an effect for patient–doctor continuity on time to diagnosis over any continuity-defining period for breast cancer. There was some evidence that increased continuity before the index consultation increased the time to diagnosis for both colorectal cancer (adjusted TRcolorectal = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.02, P<0.01) and lung cancer (TRlung = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.01, P<0.01). Conversely, there was evidence that seeing the same doctor after the index consultation reduced the delay to diagnosis (adjusted TRcolorectal = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.98 to 0.99, P<0.01; TRlung = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.98, P<0.01).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Adjusted associations between patient–doctor continuity for different continuity-defining periods and time to referral and time to diagnosis of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer

Finally, evidence of an effect for patient–doctor continuity before the index consultation on time to referral was found for patients with breast cancer only (adjusted TRbreast = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.95, P<0.01) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

Summary

Overall, patient–doctor continuity was not associated with clinically important changes in time to diagnosis for patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. In the primary analyses, the association seen with later diagnosis of colorectal cancer equates to a maximum delay of around 7 days; while in the secondary analyses the maximum reduction in time to diagnosis for patients with colorectal or lung cancer who see the same doctor after the index consultation are up to 14 and 18 days, respectively. For all cancers, the most significant factor predicting earlier diagnosis was first presentation with a high-risk symptom or sign; and the greatest delay for diagnosis of all three cancers occurred after the patients had been referred.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study to explore, using a large, reliable, and validated dataset, the effect of patient–doctor continuity on the diagnostic process of three common cancers (breast, colorectal, and lung). However, the analyses were restricted to between 26.3%, (n = 2955, breast), and 47.6%, (n = 8143, lung) of the original datasets most patients were excluded because they had no relevant Read-Coded symptoms or signs in the 12 months before diagnosis. It is important to remember that the data for this study come from medical records whose primary purpose is clinical care, rather than research, so it is likely that relevant symptoms and signs in both included and excluded patients were not coded. In addition, the final route by which patients obtained their diagnoses is not known. A significant proportion of patients may have been diagnosed after being admitted through the emergency department, independent of their GP.24

This study highlights the methodological challenges of operationalising continuity in this type of research.25 It was decided to quantify continuity in relation to the doctor seen at the index consultation and, while other approaches are possible (for example, defining continuity in terms of ‘usual doctor’), the authors believe this is the most appropriate for the research question posed: ‘Does seeing the same GP (around time of first presentation of possible cancer symptoms or signs) reduce time to diagnosis of three common cancers?’. A modified form of an established continuity index (fraction-of-care) was used but the findings were the same when the analyses were repeated using another more widely used index (Continuity of Care; available from the authors on request).26

This study improves our understanding of the role of patient–doctor continuity in patients who present with symptoms and signs who are subsequently diagnosed with cancer but not those with other outcomes or diagnoses. Also, any association between patient–doctor continuity and earlier diagnosis will be affected by variation in individual doctors’ thresholds for investigating symptoms and making referrals. That is, if doctors who provide low continuity also have a high referral rate, their patients will have a short delay to diagnosis of cancer, but at the expense of a high number of referrals that do not lead to a cancer diagnosis.

Comparison with existing literature

Several studies have examined the role of continuity in relation to cancer screening27–30 but the authors are aware of only two studies concerning diagnosis.31,32 Both were conducted in the US and neither found that continuity at a primary care level was associated with an earlier stage of cancer at diagnosis. The continuity literature provides reasons to support and explain the observation in this study that seeing a known doctor at first presentation appears to delay diagnosis, yet seeing the same doctor afterwards promotes earlier diagnosis. In the case of the former, familiarity with the patient and their problems may mean that doctors make assumptions and become closed to other diagnoses;33 the doctor may ‘fail to see the wood for the trees’ and misattribute symptoms or dismiss them.5 However, when seeing the same doctor afterwards, the doctor may assume greater responsibility for the patient in ensuring complaints are followed up and to ensure that symptoms are either explained or resolved.5 It is noteworthy that the mean number of consultations in the 12 months before diagnosis for each cancer is higher than might be expected for populations in these age groups,34 although there is a wide variation as reflected in the standard deviations. Consultation frequency itself may be a cause for concern in the pre-diagnosis period.35

Implications for research and practice

Future studies should examine the value of patient–doctor continuity in relation to the investigations and referrals that doctors make for patients who present with possible cancer symptoms or signs who do and do not go on to be given a cancer diagnosis. Ideally, future research should be prospective and incorporate other important patient characteristics (disclosure of symptoms and signs) and doctor characteristics (tolerance of uncertainty and personal thresholds for organising investigations and referrals), so that the relationship between continuity and these other factors can be assessed comprehensively. Finally, it would be worth repeating this work in ‘hard to diagnose’ cancers, in particular, those which are associated with a larger number of consultations before referral.36,37

What should GPs and policy makers do meanwhile? In keeping with much of the continuity literature in relation to patient outcomes, this study does not provide strong evidence that patient–doctor continuity reduces the time to diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Rather, it suggests that doctors working in primary care should be cautioned against overlooking potentially worrying symptoms or signs among patients who they know well. Previous work has highlighted the potential problems of ‘over-familiarity’ and the potential benefit of having a ‘fresh set of eyes’.5,38 However, that is not to negate the psychological benefits that some patients may derive from ‘following through’ a cancer diagnosis with the same GP. Until further work is carried out, it would seem sensible to recommend that practices encourage patients to follow new problems up with the same doctor, especially for patients whose symptoms or signs at the initial consultation may represent an underlying cancer but do not in themselves warrant immediate investigation or referral.

Finally, although much attention has been given to reducing delays to referral from general practice for patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer, these data suggest that more attention should be given to the process of care between referral and diagnosis. This is the main source of delay and where there is most scope for reductions in the time to diagnosis.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Nafees Din, Ms Jacqueline Barrett, and Mrs Sarah Walker for their help in building the libraries of cancer diagnoses, symptoms and signs, and referral codes; and Dr Theresa Redaniel, Dr Angelo Franchini, and Dr Sam Brilleman for their advice on analysis.

Notes

Funding

This work was funded by Cancer Research UK (C41384/A13266). The sponsors had no input into the conduct or reporting of the research. The views reported are those of the authors only.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the Independent Scientific advisory Committee of the General Practice Research Database.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received September 12, 2014.
  • Revision requested October 29, 2014.
  • Accepted December 2, 2014.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2015

This is an OpenAccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Haggerty JL,
    2. Reid RJ,
    3. Freeman GK,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 327:1219–1221.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Campbell SM,
    2. Kontopantelis E,
    3. Reeves D,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Changes in patient experiences of primary care during health service reforms in England between 2003 and 2007. Ann Fam Med 8:499–506.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Saultz JW,
    2. Albedaiwi W
    (2004) Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2:445–451.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Saultz JW,
    2. Lochner J
    (2005) Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 3:159–166.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ridd M,
    2. Shaw A,
    3. Salisbury C
    (2006) ‘Two sides of the coin’ — the value of personal continuity to GPs: a qualitative interview study. Fam Pract 23:461–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hjortdahl P
    (1992) The influence of general practitioners’ knowledge about their patients on the clinical decision-making process. Scand J Prim Health Care 10:290–294.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Weyrauch KF,
    2. Rhodes L,
    3. Psaty BM,
    4. Grubb D
    (1995) The role of physicians’ personal knowledge of the patient in clinical practice. J Fam Pract 40:249–256.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Shephard E,
    2. Stapley S,
    3. Hamilton W
    (2011) The use of electronic databases in primary care research. Fam Pract 28:352–354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2005) Referral guidelines for suspected cancer NICE clinical guideline 27 (NICE, London).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Astin M,
    2. Griffin T,
    3. Neal RD,
    4. et al.
    (2011) The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp11X572427.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Walker S,
    2. Hyde C,
    3. Hamilton W
    (2014) Risk of breast cancer in symptomatic women in primary care: a case-control study using electronic records. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X682873.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hamilton W,
    2. Peters TJ,
    3. Round A,
    4. Sharp D
    (2005) What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study. Thorax 60:1059–1065.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Rachet B,
    2. Maringe C,
    3. Nur U,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Population-based cancer survival trends in England and Wales up to 2007: an assessment of the NHS cancer plan for England. Lancet Oncol 10:351–369.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.
    1. Hamilton W,
    2. Kernick D
    (2007) Clinical features of primary brain tumours: a case-control study using electronic primary care records. Br J Gen Pract 57:695–699.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.
    1. Hamilton W,
    2. Lancashire R,
    3. Sharp D,
    4. et al.
    (2008) The importance of anaemia in diagnosing colorectal cancer: a case-control study using electronic primary care records. Br J Cancer 98:323–327.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Hamilton W,
    2. Lancashire R,
    3. Sharp D,
    4. et al.
    (2009) The risk of colorectal cancer with symptoms at different ages and between the sexes: a case-control study. BMC Med 7:17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    1. Shephard EA,
    2. Stapley S,
    3. Neal RD,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Clinical features of bladder cancer in primary care. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp12X654560.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Stapley S,
    2. Peters TJ,
    3. Neal RD,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 106:1940–1944.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brilleman SL,
    2. Salisbury C
    (2013) Comparing measures of multimorbidity to predict outcomes in primary care: a cross sectional study. Fam Pract 30:172–178.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Neal RD,
    2. Din NU,
    3. Hamilton W,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database. Br J Cancer 110:584–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Weller D,
    2. Vedsted P,
    3. Rubin G,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The Aarhus statement: improving design and reporting of studies on early cancer diagnosis. Br J Cancer 106:1262–1267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Wei LJ
    (1992) The accelerated failure time model: a useful alternative to the Cox regression model in survival analysis. Stat Med 11:1871–1879.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Bradburn MJ,
    2. Clark TG,
    3. Love SB,
    4. Altman DG
    (2003) Survival analysis part II: multivariate data analysis — an introduction to concepts and methods. Br J Cancer 89:431–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Elliss-Brookes L,
    2. McPhail S,
    3. Ives A,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Routes to diagnosis for cancer: determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 107:1220–1226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Salisbury C,
    2. Sampson F,
    3. Ridd M,
    4. Montgomery AA
    (2009) How should continuity of care in primary health care be assessed? Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp09X420257.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Jee SH,
    2. Cabana MD
    (2006) Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 63:158–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. O’Malley AS,
    2. Mandelblatt J,
    3. Gold K,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Continuity of care and the use of breast and cervical cancer screening services in a multiethnic community. Arch Intern Med 157:1462–1470.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Fenton JJ,
    2. Franks P,
    3. Reid RJ,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Continuity of care and cancer screening among health plan enrollees. Med Care 46:58–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Caplan LS,
    2. Haynes SG
    (1996) Breast cancer screening in older women. Public Health Rev 24:193–204.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Ettner SL
    (1996) The timing of preventive services for women and children: the effect of having a usual source of care. Am J Public Health 86:1748–1754.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Mainous AG 3rd.,
    2. Kern D,
    3. Hainer B,
    4. et al.
    (2004) The relationship between continuity of care and trust with stage of cancer at diagnosis. Fam Med 36:35–39.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Reid BC,
    2. Rozier RG
    (2006) Continuity of care and early diagnosis of head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol 42:510–516.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Weyrauch KF
    (1994) The personal knowledge of family physicians for their patients. Fam Med 26:452–455.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hippisley-Cox J,
    2. Vinogradova Y
    (2009) Trends in consultation rates in general practice 1995/1996 to 2008/2009: Analysis of the QResearch® database (Health and Social Care Information Centre, Leeds).
  35. 35.↵
    1. Dommett RM,
    2. Redaniel T,
    3. Stevens MC,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Risk of childhood cancer with symptoms in primary care: a population-based case-control study. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp13X660742.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lyratzopoulos G,
    2. Abel GA,
    3. McPhail S,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Measures of promptness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: secondary analysis of national audit data on patients with 18 common and rarer cancers. Br J Cancer 108:686–690.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Keeble S,
    2. Abel GA,
    3. Saunders CL,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Variation in promptness of presentation among 10 297 patients subsequently diagnosed with one of 18 cancers: Evidence from a National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care. Int J Cancer 135:1220–1228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ridd M,
    2. Lewis G,
    3. Peters TJ,
    4. Salisbury C
    (2012) Detection of patient psychological distress and longitudinal patient–doctor relationship: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp12X630052.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 65 (634)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 65, Issue 634
May 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice
Matthew J Ridd, Diana L Santos Ferreira, Alan A Montgomery, Chris Salisbury, William Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (634): e305-e311. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X684829

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice
Matthew J Ridd, Diana L Santos Ferreira, Alan A Montgomery, Chris Salisbury, William Hamilton
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (634): e305-e311. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X684829
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • cancer
  • continuity of care
  • diagnosis
  • general practice
  • patient-doctor continuity
  • symptoms

More in this TOC Section

  • Antibiotics versus no treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in residents of aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Supporting people with pain-related distress in primary care consultations: a qualitative study
  • Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242