Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services
Introduction The UK National Cancer Plan (2000) introduced a ‘two week’ waiting time standard for suspected malignancy and guidance to encourage early diagnosis. Improved access to elective (ELECT) investigation should reduce the need for emergency (EMERG) admission. This study examined route of dia...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gut 2011-04, Vol.60 (Suppl 1), p.A30-A31 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A31 |
---|---|
container_issue | Suppl 1 |
container_start_page | A30 |
container_title | Gut |
container_volume | 60 |
creator | Shawihdi, M Stern, N Thompson, E Sturgess, R Kapoor, N Pearson, M G Bodger, K |
description | Introduction The UK National Cancer Plan (2000) introduced a ‘two week’ waiting time standard for suspected malignancy and guidance to encourage early diagnosis. Improved access to elective (ELECT) investigation should reduce the need for emergency (EMERG) admission. This study examined route of diagnosis and outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer (OGC), both locally and nationally. Methods Local OGC cases were audited for 2-year periods before (‘Pre’: July 97–June 99) and after (‘Post’: Jan 01-Dec 02) service re-design, collecting details of demographics, tumour type, stage, dates of referral, diagnosis, treatment and survival. Within a project funded by the NHS Information Centre, we developed novel linkage algorithms to analyse Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2006–2008) and methods to track OGC care chronologically, selecting only incident cases with a valid pathway of coded diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. External linkage to death registry established date of death and 2-year survival. Results LOCAL DATA: n = 333 cases (Pre, n = 152; Post, n = 181). No change in % of patients diagnosed via EMERG route after service re-design (Pre: 30.9% vs Post: 31.5%; p = 0.981), nor any change in age, symptom or tumour profile of EMERG cases. Local EMERG cases were older than ELEC (75 vs 68 years; p < 0.0001), less likely to have potentially curative treatment (13.5% vs 40%; p < 0.0001) and had poorer 3-year survival (10.6% vs 22.2%, p = 0.013). EMERG cases with dysphagia and/or weight loss had lower 3 year survival than those with other presenting features (p = 0.035). NATIONAL DATA We identified 33,115 patients with OGC, of whom 26,097 (79%) met study criteria. Of these, 7082 (27%) were EMERG and 19,015 ELEC (73%). EMERG cases were older (74 years vs 70 years; p < 0.001), less likely to undergo surgery (516 [2%] vs 3780 [14.5%], p < 0.001) and had poorer 2-year survival (19.6% vs 32.9%, p < 0.001). The % of EMERG cases varied widely between cancer networks (22% to 40%). Conclusion Findings are consistent with a recent report by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (Nov 2010) suggesting that a quarter of major cancers are diagnosed via the EMERG route. Our national linkage study suggests 27% of new OGC cases in England are diagnosed as EMERG and this mode of presentation predicts a poor outcome, confirmed by detailed local audit. Although EMERG admission is unavoidable for some cases, the observed variation across the country suggests possible u |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/gut.2011.239301.61 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2038732752</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2038732752</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b2401-af145c1fbe44771828a6d2f0cb23f46f81004bda5815cc239d0110165ce891c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMFqGzEQhkVoIW6aF8hJ0PM6Gkm7K_dWTJoEjEMhCaUXMauVtnK9K0faDfVz5IUj45JecxKMvv8f5iPkAtgcQFSX3TTOOQOYc7EQDOYVnJAZyEoVgiv1gcwYg7ooa7k4JZ9S2jDGlFrAjLxc9TZ2djB7im3vU_JhoJgo0him0VIXIg02hd1v7EKHaYzeUIODsZG2HrshJJ--ZrzH-CfPgqO7cMhMowm9pTi0-TMHWt9i7nuacOvHPfV5YHDM5GHDNhjc0mTjszc2fSYfHW6TPf_3npGH71f3y5tidXd9u_y2KhouGRToQJYGXGOlrGtQXGHVcsdMw4WTlVPAmGxaLBWUxmQxbRbEoCqNzacbKc7Il2PvLoanyaZRb8IUh7xScyZULXhd8kzxI2ViSClap3fR52v3Gpg-yNdZvj7I10f5uoIcKo4hn0b79y2RHemqFnWp149LfX_9Y71e8Z_613--6Tfv6X8Fg2OXbw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2038732752</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services</title><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Shawihdi, M ; Stern, N ; Thompson, E ; Sturgess, R ; Kapoor, N ; Pearson, M G ; Bodger, K</creator><creatorcontrib>Shawihdi, M ; Stern, N ; Thompson, E ; Sturgess, R ; Kapoor, N ; Pearson, M G ; Bodger, K</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction The UK National Cancer Plan (2000) introduced a ‘two week’ waiting time standard for suspected malignancy and guidance to encourage early diagnosis. Improved access to elective (ELECT) investigation should reduce the need for emergency (EMERG) admission. This study examined route of diagnosis and outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer (OGC), both locally and nationally. Methods Local OGC cases were audited for 2-year periods before (‘Pre’: July 97–June 99) and after (‘Post’: Jan 01-Dec 02) service re-design, collecting details of demographics, tumour type, stage, dates of referral, diagnosis, treatment and survival. Within a project funded by the NHS Information Centre, we developed novel linkage algorithms to analyse Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2006–2008) and methods to track OGC care chronologically, selecting only incident cases with a valid pathway of coded diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. External linkage to death registry established date of death and 2-year survival. Results LOCAL DATA: n = 333 cases (Pre, n = 152; Post, n = 181). No change in % of patients diagnosed via EMERG route after service re-design (Pre: 30.9% vs Post: 31.5%; p = 0.981), nor any change in age, symptom or tumour profile of EMERG cases. Local EMERG cases were older than ELEC (75 vs 68 years; p < 0.0001), less likely to have potentially curative treatment (13.5% vs 40%; p < 0.0001) and had poorer 3-year survival (10.6% vs 22.2%, p = 0.013). EMERG cases with dysphagia and/or weight loss had lower 3 year survival than those with other presenting features (p = 0.035). NATIONAL DATA We identified 33,115 patients with OGC, of whom 26,097 (79%) met study criteria. Of these, 7082 (27%) were EMERG and 19,015 ELEC (73%). EMERG cases were older (74 years vs 70 years; p < 0.001), less likely to undergo surgery (516 [2%] vs 3780 [14.5%], p < 0.001) and had poorer 2-year survival (19.6% vs 32.9%, p < 0.001). The % of EMERG cases varied widely between cancer networks (22% to 40%). Conclusion Findings are consistent with a recent report by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (Nov 2010) suggesting that a quarter of major cancers are diagnosed via the EMERG route. Our national linkage study suggests 27% of new OGC cases in England are diagnosed as EMERG and this mode of presentation predicts a poor outcome, confirmed by detailed local audit. Although EMERG admission is unavoidable for some cases, the observed variation across the country suggests possible unresolved inequalities in patient access. Monitoring of this candidate indicator could assess the impact of new initiatives to promote earlier elective diagnosis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-5749</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3288</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/gut.2011.239301.61</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</publisher><subject>admission rates ; Cancer ; Demography ; Diagnosis ; Dysphagia ; Esophageal cancer ; Gastric cancer ; guidelines ; Intelligence ; Malignancy ; Medical diagnosis ; mortality ; oesophageal cancer ; Patients ; Quality control ; service provision ; Surgery ; Survival ; Therapeutic applications ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Gut, 2011-04, Vol.60 (Suppl 1), p.A30-A31</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b2401-af145c1fbe44771828a6d2f0cb23f46f81004bda5815cc239d0110165ce891c43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://gut.bmj.com/content/60/Suppl_1/A30.2.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://gut.bmj.com/content/60/Suppl_1/A30.2.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,3196,23571,27924,27925,77600,77631</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shawihdi, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stern, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sturgess, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapoor, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, M G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodger, K</creatorcontrib><title>Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services</title><title>Gut</title><addtitle>Gut</addtitle><description>Introduction The UK National Cancer Plan (2000) introduced a ‘two week’ waiting time standard for suspected malignancy and guidance to encourage early diagnosis. Improved access to elective (ELECT) investigation should reduce the need for emergency (EMERG) admission. This study examined route of diagnosis and outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer (OGC), both locally and nationally. Methods Local OGC cases were audited for 2-year periods before (‘Pre’: July 97–June 99) and after (‘Post’: Jan 01-Dec 02) service re-design, collecting details of demographics, tumour type, stage, dates of referral, diagnosis, treatment and survival. Within a project funded by the NHS Information Centre, we developed novel linkage algorithms to analyse Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2006–2008) and methods to track OGC care chronologically, selecting only incident cases with a valid pathway of coded diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. External linkage to death registry established date of death and 2-year survival. Results LOCAL DATA: n = 333 cases (Pre, n = 152; Post, n = 181). No change in % of patients diagnosed via EMERG route after service re-design (Pre: 30.9% vs Post: 31.5%; p = 0.981), nor any change in age, symptom or tumour profile of EMERG cases. Local EMERG cases were older than ELEC (75 vs 68 years; p < 0.0001), less likely to have potentially curative treatment (13.5% vs 40%; p < 0.0001) and had poorer 3-year survival (10.6% vs 22.2%, p = 0.013). EMERG cases with dysphagia and/or weight loss had lower 3 year survival than those with other presenting features (p = 0.035). NATIONAL DATA We identified 33,115 patients with OGC, of whom 26,097 (79%) met study criteria. Of these, 7082 (27%) were EMERG and 19,015 ELEC (73%). EMERG cases were older (74 years vs 70 years; p < 0.001), less likely to undergo surgery (516 [2%] vs 3780 [14.5%], p < 0.001) and had poorer 2-year survival (19.6% vs 32.9%, p < 0.001). The % of EMERG cases varied widely between cancer networks (22% to 40%). Conclusion Findings are consistent with a recent report by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (Nov 2010) suggesting that a quarter of major cancers are diagnosed via the EMERG route. Our national linkage study suggests 27% of new OGC cases in England are diagnosed as EMERG and this mode of presentation predicts a poor outcome, confirmed by detailed local audit. Although EMERG admission is unavoidable for some cases, the observed variation across the country suggests possible unresolved inequalities in patient access. Monitoring of this candidate indicator could assess the impact of new initiatives to promote earlier elective diagnosis.</description><subject>admission rates</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Dysphagia</subject><subject>Esophageal cancer</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>guidelines</subject><subject>Intelligence</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>mortality</subject><subject>oesophageal cancer</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>service provision</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Therapeutic applications</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0017-5749</issn><issn>1468-3288</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMFqGzEQhkVoIW6aF8hJ0PM6Gkm7K_dWTJoEjEMhCaUXMauVtnK9K0faDfVz5IUj45JecxKMvv8f5iPkAtgcQFSX3TTOOQOYc7EQDOYVnJAZyEoVgiv1gcwYg7ooa7k4JZ9S2jDGlFrAjLxc9TZ2djB7im3vU_JhoJgo0him0VIXIg02hd1v7EKHaYzeUIODsZG2HrshJJ--ZrzH-CfPgqO7cMhMowm9pTi0-TMHWt9i7nuacOvHPfV5YHDM5GHDNhjc0mTjszc2fSYfHW6TPf_3npGH71f3y5tidXd9u_y2KhouGRToQJYGXGOlrGtQXGHVcsdMw4WTlVPAmGxaLBWUxmQxbRbEoCqNzacbKc7Il2PvLoanyaZRb8IUh7xScyZULXhd8kzxI2ViSClap3fR52v3Gpg-yNdZvj7I10f5uoIcKo4hn0b79y2RHemqFnWp149LfX_9Y71e8Z_613--6Tfv6X8Fg2OXbw</recordid><startdate>201104</startdate><enddate>201104</enddate><creator>Shawihdi, M</creator><creator>Stern, N</creator><creator>Thompson, E</creator><creator>Sturgess, R</creator><creator>Kapoor, N</creator><creator>Pearson, M G</creator><creator>Bodger, K</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201104</creationdate><title>Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services</title><author>Shawihdi, M ; Stern, N ; Thompson, E ; Sturgess, R ; Kapoor, N ; Pearson, M G ; Bodger, K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b2401-af145c1fbe44771828a6d2f0cb23f46f81004bda5815cc239d0110165ce891c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>admission rates</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Dysphagia</topic><topic>Esophageal cancer</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>guidelines</topic><topic>Intelligence</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>mortality</topic><topic>oesophageal cancer</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>service provision</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Therapeutic applications</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shawihdi, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stern, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sturgess, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapoor, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, M G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodger, K</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Gut</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shawihdi, M</au><au>Stern, N</au><au>Thompson, E</au><au>Sturgess, R</au><au>Kapoor, N</au><au>Pearson, M G</au><au>Bodger, K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services</atitle><jtitle>Gut</jtitle><addtitle>Gut</addtitle><date>2011-04</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A30</spage><epage>A31</epage><pages>A30-A31</pages><issn>0017-5749</issn><eissn>1468-3288</eissn><abstract>Introduction The UK National Cancer Plan (2000) introduced a ‘two week’ waiting time standard for suspected malignancy and guidance to encourage early diagnosis. Improved access to elective (ELECT) investigation should reduce the need for emergency (EMERG) admission. This study examined route of diagnosis and outcomes for oesophagogastric cancer (OGC), both locally and nationally. Methods Local OGC cases were audited for 2-year periods before (‘Pre’: July 97–June 99) and after (‘Post’: Jan 01-Dec 02) service re-design, collecting details of demographics, tumour type, stage, dates of referral, diagnosis, treatment and survival. Within a project funded by the NHS Information Centre, we developed novel linkage algorithms to analyse Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2006–2008) and methods to track OGC care chronologically, selecting only incident cases with a valid pathway of coded diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. External linkage to death registry established date of death and 2-year survival. Results LOCAL DATA: n = 333 cases (Pre, n = 152; Post, n = 181). No change in % of patients diagnosed via EMERG route after service re-design (Pre: 30.9% vs Post: 31.5%; p = 0.981), nor any change in age, symptom or tumour profile of EMERG cases. Local EMERG cases were older than ELEC (75 vs 68 years; p < 0.0001), less likely to have potentially curative treatment (13.5% vs 40%; p < 0.0001) and had poorer 3-year survival (10.6% vs 22.2%, p = 0.013). EMERG cases with dysphagia and/or weight loss had lower 3 year survival than those with other presenting features (p = 0.035). NATIONAL DATA We identified 33,115 patients with OGC, of whom 26,097 (79%) met study criteria. Of these, 7082 (27%) were EMERG and 19,015 ELEC (73%). EMERG cases were older (74 years vs 70 years; p < 0.001), less likely to undergo surgery (516 [2%] vs 3780 [14.5%], p < 0.001) and had poorer 2-year survival (19.6% vs 32.9%, p < 0.001). The % of EMERG cases varied widely between cancer networks (22% to 40%). Conclusion Findings are consistent with a recent report by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (Nov 2010) suggesting that a quarter of major cancers are diagnosed via the EMERG route. Our national linkage study suggests 27% of new OGC cases in England are diagnosed as EMERG and this mode of presentation predicts a poor outcome, confirmed by detailed local audit. Although EMERG admission is unavoidable for some cases, the observed variation across the country suggests possible unresolved inequalities in patient access. Monitoring of this candidate indicator could assess the impact of new initiatives to promote earlier elective diagnosis.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</pub><doi>10.1136/gut.2011.239301.61</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0017-5749 |
ispartof | Gut, 2011-04, Vol.60 (Suppl 1), p.A30-A31 |
issn | 0017-5749 1468-3288 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2038732752 |
source | BMJ Journals - NESLi2; PubMed Central |
subjects | admission rates Cancer Demography Diagnosis Dysphagia Esophageal cancer Gastric cancer guidelines Intelligence Malignancy Medical diagnosis mortality oesophageal cancer Patients Quality control service provision Surgery Survival Therapeutic applications Tumors |
title | Emergency admission as a route for oesophagogastric cancer diagnosis: a marker of poor outcome and a candidate quality indicator for local services |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T17%3A48%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Emergency%20admission%20as%20a%20route%20for%20oesophagogastric%20cancer%20diagnosis:%20a%20marker%20of%20poor%20outcome%20and%20a%20candidate%20quality%20indicator%20for%20local%20services&rft.jtitle=Gut&rft.au=Shawihdi,%20M&rft.date=2011-04&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A30&rft.epage=A31&rft.pages=A30-A31&rft.issn=0017-5749&rft.eissn=1468-3288&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/gut.2011.239301.61&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2038732752%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2038732752&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |