30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review.

          We wanted to undertake a critical review of the medical literature regarding the relationships between interpersonal continuity of care and the outcomes and cost of health care. A search of the MEDLINE database from 1966 through April 2002 was conducted by the primary author to find original English language articles focusing on interpersonal continuity of patient care. The articles were then screened to select those articles focusing on the relationship between interpersonal continuity and the outcome or cost of care. These articles were systematically reviewed and analyzed by both authors for study method, measurement technique, and quality of evidence. Forty-one research articles reporting the results of 40 studies were identified that addressed the relationship between interpersonal continuity and care outcome. A total of 81 separate care outcomes were reported in these articles. Fifty-one outcomes were significantly improved and only 2 were significantly worse in association with interpersonal continuity. Twenty-two articles reported the results of 20 studies of the relationship between interpersonal continuity and cost. These studies reported significantly lower cost or utilization for 35 of 41 cost variables in association with interpersonal continuity. Although the available literature reflects persistent methodologic problems, it is likely that a significant association exists between interpersonal continuity and improved preventive care and reduced hospitalization. Future research in this area should address more specific and measurable outcomes and more direct costs and should seek to define and measure interpersonal continuity more explicitly.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review.

            We wanted to review the medical literature regarding the relationship between interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction and suggest future strategies for research on this topic. A search of the MEDLINE database from 1966 through April 2002 was conducted to find articles focusing on interpersonal continuity of patient care. The resulting articles were screened to select those focusing on the relationship between interpersonal continuity in the doctor-patient relationship and patient satisfaction. These articles were systematically reviewed and analyzed for study method, measurement technique, and the quality of evidence. Thirty articles were found that addressed the relationship between interpersonal continuity and patient satisfaction with medical care. Twenty-two of these articles were reports of original research. Nineteen of the 22, including 4 clinical trials, reported significantly higher satisfaction when interpersonal continuity was present. Although the available literature reflects persistent methodologic problems, a consistent and significant positive relationship exists between interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction. Future research in this area should address whether the same is true for all patients or only for those who seek ongoing relationships with physicians in primary care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              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

              Cancer awareness public campaigns aim to shorten the interval between symptom onset and presentation to a doctor (the ‘patient interval’). Appreciating variation in promptness of presentation can help to better target awareness campaigns. We explored variation in patient intervals recorded in consultations with general practitioners among 10,297 English patients subsequently diagnosed with one of 18 cancers (bladder, brain, breast, colorectal, endometrial, leukaemia, lung, lymphoma, melanoma, multiple myeloma, oesophageal, oro-pharyngeal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal, stomach, and unknown primary) using data from of the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (2009–2010). Proportions of patients with ‘prompt’/‘non-prompt’ presentation (0–14 or 15+ days from symptom onset, respectively) were described and respective odds ratios were calculated by multivariable logistic regression. The overall median recorded patient interval was 10 days (IQR 0–38). Of all patients, 56% presented promptly. Prompt presentation was more frequent among older or housebound patients (p < 0.001). Prompt presentation was most frequent for bladder and renal cancer (74% and 70%, respectively); and least frequent for oro-pharyngeal and oesophageal cancer (34% and 39%, respectively, p <.001). Using lung cancer as reference, the adjusted odds ratios of non-prompt presentation were 2.26 (95% confidence interval 1.57–3.25) and 0.42 (0.34–0.52) for oro-pharyngeal and bladder cancer, respectively. Sensitivity analyses produced similar findings. Routinely recorded patient interval data reveal considerable variation in the promptness of presentation. These findings can help to prioritise public awareness initiatives and research focusing on symptoms of cancers associated with greater risk of non-prompt presentation, such as oro-pharyngeal and oesophageal cancer. What's new? A critical aspect of cancer diagnosis is how promptly patients consult a doctor after they first notice initial symptoms. Here, the authors examine differences in this so-called patient interval in English patients subsequently diagnosed with one of 18 cancers. On average, patients with bladder and renal cancer as well as older and housebound patients consulted a doctor relatively promptly while patients with oro-pharyngeal and oesophageal cancer took the longest until first presenting to a general practitioner. The authors point out that cancer awareness campaigns should encompass symptoms of oro-pharyngeal and oesophageal cancer aiming to shorten the patient interval for these cancers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Consultant senior lecturer in Primary Health Care
                Role: Research assistant
                Role: Professor of medical statistics and clinical trials
                Role: Professor of primary care
                Role: Professor of primary care diagnostics
                Journal
                Br J Gen Pract
                Br J Gen Pract
                bjgp
                The British Journal of General Practice
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                27 April 2015
                May 2015
                27 April 2015
                : 65
                : 634
                : e305-e311
                Affiliations
                Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
                Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
                Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
                Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
                University of Exeter, Exeter.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Matthew Ridd, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. E-mail: m.ridd@ 123456bristol.ac.uk
                Article
                10.3399/bjgp15X684829
                4408510
                25918335
                09278cb0-5dcc-4744-9a53-fcc6ca64a838
                © 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.

                History
                : 12 September 2014
                : 29 October 2014
                : 02 December 2014
                Categories
                Research

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

                Comments

                Comment on this article