26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          There is increasing interest in using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high-risk symptoms in primary care.

          Aim

          This study aimed to investigate GPs’ attitudes and willingness to use a FIT over an urgent 2-week wait (2WW) referral.

          Design and setting

          A cross-sectional online survey involving 1024 GPs working across England.

          Method

          Logistic regression models were used to explore the likelihood of GPs using a FIT instead of a 2WW referral, and reported using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

          Results

          Just over one-third of GPs ( n = 365) preferred to use a FIT as a rule-out test over a 2WW referral. GPs were more willing if they were: aged 36–45 years (OR 1.59 [95% CI = 1.04 to 2.44]); 46–55 years (OR 1.99 [95% CI = 1.14 to 3.47]); thought a FIT was highly accurate (OR 1.63 [95% CI = 1.16 to 2.29]); thought patients would benefit compared with having a colonoscopy (OR 2.02 [95% CI = 1.46 to 2.79]); and were highly confident about discussing the benefits of a FIT (OR 2.14 [95% CI = 1.46 to 3.16]). GPs were less willing if they had had >10 urgent referrals in the past year (OR 0.62 [95% CI = 0.40 to 0.94]) and thought that longer consultations would be needed (OR 0.61 [95% CI = 0.44 to 0.83]).

          Conclusion

          The study findings suggest that the acceptability of using a FIT as a rule-out test in primary care is currently low, with less than half of GPs who perceived the test to be accurate preferring it over colonoscopy. Any potential guideline changes recommending a FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms, instead of urgent referral to rule out CRC, are likely to require intensive supporting educational outreach to increase GP confidence in the accuracy and application of a FIT in this context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

            Background Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this. Aim To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit. Design and setting Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England. Method Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management. Results Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15–86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0–27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more. Conclusion The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients.

              Although the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of procedures could pose relevant health problems. Recognizing risk factors and optimizing treatment may reduce perforation incidence and the probability of (severe) complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of endoscopic colonoscopic perforation. A retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoido/colonoscopy between 1990 and 2005. The patients' demographic data, endoscopic procedural information, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded. In the 16-year period, 30,366 endoscopic colonic procedures were performed. In total, 35 colonic perforations occured (0.12%). All the patients underwent a laparotomy: for primary repair in 18 cases (56%), for resection with anastomosis in 8 cases (25%), and for resection without anastomosis in 6 cases (19%). In three patients (8.6%), no perforation was found. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in 21 cases (60%) and complicated in 14 cases (40%), including mortality for 3 patients (8.6% resulting from perforations and 0.01% resulting from total endoscopic colon procedures). The relative risk ratio of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures for perforations was 4. Therapeutic procedures show a delay in presentation and diagnosis compared with diagnostic procedures. Of the 35 perforations, 26 (74%) occurred in the sigmoid colon. Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.12% was found. The perforation risk was higher for colonoscopic procedures than for sigmoidoscopic procedures. The sigmoid colon is the area at greatest risk for perforation. Immediate operative management, preferably primary repair and sometimes resection, appears to be a good strategy for most patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Reader in behavioural science in health
                Role: Research associate
                Role: Research assistant
                Role: Programme manager (early diagnosis)
                Role: GP and clinical researcher
                Role: Senior research associate
                Role: MSc student
                Role: Research associate
                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
                November 2018
                09 October 2018
                09 October 2018
                : 68
                : 676
                : e757-e764
                Affiliations
                Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health;
                Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health;
                Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health;
                UCLH Cancer Collaborative, London.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
                Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London.
                Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health;
                Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health;
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Christian von Wagner, Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. Email: c.wagner@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Article
                10.3399/bjgp18X699413
                6193787
                30297435
                4f094349-b9bc-4276-8647-8d1d8f4008be
                © British Journal of General Practice 2018

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

                History
                : 16 May 2018
                : 18 June 2018
                : 02 July 2018
                Categories
                Research

                colorectal cancer,cross-sectional survey,faecal immunochemical test,2-week wait,primary care,symptomatic

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content151

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors251