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
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

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

Comparison between the 2018 and 2014 National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England

Ruth Swann, Sean McPhail, Gary A Abel, Jana Witt, Lorna Wills, Sara Hiom, Georgios Lyratzopoulos and Gregory Rubin
British Journal of General Practice 15 March 2023; BJGP.2022.0268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0268
Ruth Swann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ruth Swann
  • For correspondence: ruth.swann@cancer.org.uk
Sean McPhail
2 National Disease Registration Service, NHS Digital, Leeds, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary A Abel
3 University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jana Witt
1 Cancer Research UK, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lorna Wills
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Hiom
1 Cancer Research UK, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
4 UCL, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory Rubin
5 Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality improvement priority. Aim: To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process and its timeliness before and after publication of the 2015 NICE Guideline for the referral of suspected cancer in primary care. Design and setting: Population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014. Method: GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected information on cancer patients. Data included patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of consultations, use of primary care investigations, referral type and perceived avoidable diagnostic delays. Results: Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (43% vs. 38%) with similar changes in median diagnostic interval (36 days vs. 40 days). Compared to 2014, fewer patients had 3+ consultations before referral (19% vs. 26%). Use of primary care investigations increased (48% vs. 45%). Urgent cancer referrals increased (55% vs. 52%) while emergency referrals decreased (13% vs. 17%). Recorded use of safety netting was lower (40% vs. 44%). Conclusion: In a 5-year period including the year when national guidelines were updated, there were substantial improvements in the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

  • cancer
  • clinical audit
  • diagnosis
  • investigations
  • morbidity
  • primary care
  • Received May 26, 2022.
  • Accepted January 18, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

Online First

Download PDF
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.
Comparison between the 2018 and 2014 National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England
(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
Accepted Manuscript
Comparison between the 2018 and 2014 National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England
Ruth Swann, Sean McPhail, Gary A Abel, Jana Witt, Lorna Wills, Sara Hiom, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Gregory Rubin
British Journal of General Practice 15 March 2023; BJGP.2022.0268. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0268

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Accepted Manuscript
Comparison between the 2018 and 2014 National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England
Ruth Swann, Sean McPhail, Gary A Abel, Jana Witt, Lorna Wills, Sara Hiom, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Gregory Rubin
British Journal of General Practice 15 March 2023; BJGP.2022.0268. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0268
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
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • clinical audit
  • Diagnosis
  • investigations
  • morbidity
  • Primary Care

More in this TOC Section

  • The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review
  • Performance of ethnic minority versus White doctors in the MRCGP assessment 2016–2021: a cross-sectional study
  • Trends in the registration of anxiety in Belgian primary care from 2000 to 2021: a registry-based 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
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

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