Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Research
Associations between diagnostic pathways and care experience in colorectal cancer: evidence from patient-reported data
  1. Theodosia Salika1,
  2. Gary A Abel2,
  3. Silvia C Mendonca3,
  4. Christian von Wagner1,4,
  5. Cristina Renzi1,
  6. Annie Herbert1,
  7. Sean McPhail,
  8. Georgios Lyratzopoulos1,3
  1. 1 Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2 University of Exeter Medical School (Primary Care), Exeter, UK
  3. 3 The Health Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  4. 4 National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK; y.lyratzopoulos{at}ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To examine how different pathways to diagnosis of colorectal cancer may be associated with the experience of subsequent care.

Design Patient survey linked to information on diagnostic route.

English patients with colorectal cancer (analysis sample n=6837) who responded to a patient survey soon after their hospital treatment.

Main outcome measures Odds Ratios and adjusted proportions of negative evaluation of key aspects of care for colorectal cancer, including the experience of shared decision-making about treatment, specialist nursing and care coordination, by diagnostic route (ie, screening detection, emergency presentation, urgent and elective general practitioner referral).

Results For 14 of 18 questions, there was evidence (p≤0.02) for variation in patient experience by diagnostic route, with 6–31 percentage point differences between routes in adjusted proportions of negative experience. Emergency presenters were more likely to report a negative experience for most questions, including those about adequacy of information about their diagnosis and sufficient explanation before operations. Screen-detected patients were least likely to report negative experiences except for support from primary care. Patients diagnosed through elective primary care referrals were most likely to report worse experience for questions for which overall variation by route was generally small.

Conclusions Screening-detected patients tend to report the best and emergency presenters the worst experience of subsequent care. Improvement efforts can target care integration for screening-detected patients and provision of information about the diagnosis and treatment of emergency presenters.

  • colorectal neoplasm
  • cancer epidemiology
  • health service research
  • primary care
  • psychology

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors The study was initially conceived by SCM, GAA and GL. All authors have further developed the focus of the paper in collective discussions and contributed to the development of methods of analysis. TS led the data analysis, with input from GAA. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings and the drafting of the manuscript and approved its final version.

  • Funding GL, TS and AH are supported by a Cancer Research UK, Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship Award to GL (C18081/A18180). GL is an associate director (co-investigator) of the multi-institutional CanTest Research Collaborative funded by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Catalyst award (C8640/A23385).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval The research is secondary analysis of anonymous previously linked data, requiring no ethics approval.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional unpublished data are available.