A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Introduction The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to en...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British dental journal 2019-09, Vol.227 (5), p.403-409 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 409 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 403 |
container_title | British dental journal |
container_volume | 227 |
creator | Grey, Richard Walsh, Stephen |
description | Introduction
The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to ensure their patients get fast and effective treatment.
Aims
1) To evaluate adherence to guidelines of electronic 2WR referrals for HNC sent to Western Sussex Hospitals Trust from GDPs in Sussex; 2) to determine the detection rate of oral malignancies from these referrals; 3) to determine the success of the maxillofacial unit in seeing referred patients within two weeks.
Materials and methods
Two hundred and nineteen randomised electronic 2WR referrals were analysed for adherence to the guidelines for referral of suspected oral cancer. Patient waiting times, subsequent correspondence and pathology results were analysed.
Results
One hundred and thirty-five referrals (62%) were deemed to be compliant with the NICE NG12 guidelines, while 186 referred patients (85%) were seen within the two-week time frame. Six referrals (2%) resulted in a positive detection of malignancy (a lower rate compared to similar previous studies).
Discussion
There are several possible reasons for the poor rate of guideline adherence from GDPs, such as pressure to refer defensively and a lack of knowledge of referral guidelines or oral pathology. This may contribute to a poor detection rate, although there may be other contributing factors.
Conclusions
Thirty-eight percent of electronic 2WR referrals from GDPs were deemed inappropriate; ongoing education is required to minimise these inappropriate referrals. Patients must be made aware of the reason for their referral to promote attendance. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for such a low detection rate. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41415-019-0668-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2290904520</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290904520</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b253eba11a657da95a691f0f1ebb4dafdb6b6aa88ff9b9dbb728b9b1e82957a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhB3BBlrhwCYwdx46PVUVZpAoOLeJo2cmYps3ai-2wi8SPx8sWkJA4zeF9781oHiHPGbxm0PZvsmCCdQ0w3YCUfbN_QFZMKNl0rWofkhUAqKowOCFPcr4FYEKAfExOWtZxANGtyI8zmvDbhDsaPS03SHHGoaQYpoGWXWx2iHc0LTNWzGNKds7Ux0Rv0I7UhpEGHO7oYMOAiZZIP2MumAK9WnLGPV3HvJ3KwfRhfUUv4hJGW6YY6HVacnlKHvmq4bP7eUo-Xby9Pl83lx_fvT8_u2yGVvHSON616CxjVnZqtLqzUjMPnqFzYrR-dNJJa_vee-306JzivdOOYc91p6xoT8mrY-42xa9LvdBspjzgPNuAccmGcw26voNDRV_-g97GJYV63S8KpOBKVYodqSHFnOtnzDZNG5u-GwbmUI05VmNqNeZQjdlXz4v75MVtcPzj-N1FBfgRyFUKXzD9Xf3_1J_CXJsw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290064277</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Grey, Richard ; Walsh, Stephen</creator><creatorcontrib>Grey, Richard ; Walsh, Stephen</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to ensure their patients get fast and effective treatment.
Aims
1) To evaluate adherence to guidelines of electronic 2WR referrals for HNC sent to Western Sussex Hospitals Trust from GDPs in Sussex; 2) to determine the detection rate of oral malignancies from these referrals; 3) to determine the success of the maxillofacial unit in seeing referred patients within two weeks.
Materials and methods
Two hundred and nineteen randomised electronic 2WR referrals were analysed for adherence to the guidelines for referral of suspected oral cancer. Patient waiting times, subsequent correspondence and pathology results were analysed.
Results
One hundred and thirty-five referrals (62%) were deemed to be compliant with the NICE NG12 guidelines, while 186 referred patients (85%) were seen within the two-week time frame. Six referrals (2%) resulted in a positive detection of malignancy (a lower rate compared to similar previous studies).
Discussion
There are several possible reasons for the poor rate of guideline adherence from GDPs, such as pressure to refer defensively and a lack of knowledge of referral guidelines or oral pathology. This may contribute to a poor detection rate, although there may be other contributing factors.
Conclusions
Thirty-eight percent of electronic 2WR referrals from GDPs were deemed inappropriate; ongoing education is required to minimise these inappropriate referrals. Patients must be made aware of the reason for their referral to promote attendance. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for such a low detection rate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0610</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5373</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41415-019-0668-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31520045</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>Dentistry ; Guideline Adherence ; Head & neck cancer ; Head and Neck Neoplasms ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Malignancy ; Maxillofacial ; Medical referrals ; Mouth Neoplasms ; Oral cancer ; Patients ; Referral and Consultation ; State Medicine</subject><ispartof>British dental journal, 2019-09, Vol.227 (5), p.403-409</ispartof><rights>British Dental Association 2019</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Sep 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b253eba11a657da95a691f0f1ebb4dafdb6b6aa88ff9b9dbb728b9b1e82957a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b253eba11a657da95a691f0f1ebb4dafdb6b6aa88ff9b9dbb728b9b1e82957a43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31520045$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grey, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Stephen</creatorcontrib><title>A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</title><title>British dental journal</title><addtitle>Br Dent J</addtitle><addtitle>Br Dent J</addtitle><description>Introduction
The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to ensure their patients get fast and effective treatment.
Aims
1) To evaluate adherence to guidelines of electronic 2WR referrals for HNC sent to Western Sussex Hospitals Trust from GDPs in Sussex; 2) to determine the detection rate of oral malignancies from these referrals; 3) to determine the success of the maxillofacial unit in seeing referred patients within two weeks.
Materials and methods
Two hundred and nineteen randomised electronic 2WR referrals were analysed for adherence to the guidelines for referral of suspected oral cancer. Patient waiting times, subsequent correspondence and pathology results were analysed.
Results
One hundred and thirty-five referrals (62%) were deemed to be compliant with the NICE NG12 guidelines, while 186 referred patients (85%) were seen within the two-week time frame. Six referrals (2%) resulted in a positive detection of malignancy (a lower rate compared to similar previous studies).
Discussion
There are several possible reasons for the poor rate of guideline adherence from GDPs, such as pressure to refer defensively and a lack of knowledge of referral guidelines or oral pathology. This may contribute to a poor detection rate, although there may be other contributing factors.
Conclusions
Thirty-eight percent of electronic 2WR referrals from GDPs were deemed inappropriate; ongoing education is required to minimise these inappropriate referrals. Patients must be made aware of the reason for their referral to promote attendance. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for such a low detection rate.</description><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence</subject><subject>Head & neck cancer</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Maxillofacial</subject><subject>Medical referrals</subject><subject>Mouth Neoplasms</subject><subject>Oral cancer</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>State Medicine</subject><issn>0007-0610</issn><issn>1476-5373</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFv1DAQhS0EokvhB3BBlrhwCYwdx46PVUVZpAoOLeJo2cmYps3ai-2wi8SPx8sWkJA4zeF9781oHiHPGbxm0PZvsmCCdQ0w3YCUfbN_QFZMKNl0rWofkhUAqKowOCFPcr4FYEKAfExOWtZxANGtyI8zmvDbhDsaPS03SHHGoaQYpoGWXWx2iHc0LTNWzGNKds7Ux0Rv0I7UhpEGHO7oYMOAiZZIP2MumAK9WnLGPV3HvJ3KwfRhfUUv4hJGW6YY6HVacnlKHvmq4bP7eUo-Xby9Pl83lx_fvT8_u2yGVvHSON616CxjVnZqtLqzUjMPnqFzYrR-dNJJa_vee-306JzivdOOYc91p6xoT8mrY-42xa9LvdBspjzgPNuAccmGcw26voNDRV_-g97GJYV63S8KpOBKVYodqSHFnOtnzDZNG5u-GwbmUI05VmNqNeZQjdlXz4v75MVtcPzj-N1FBfgRyFUKXzD9Xf3_1J_CXJsw</recordid><startdate>20190901</startdate><enddate>20190901</enddate><creator>Grey, Richard</creator><creator>Walsh, Stephen</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</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>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>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190901</creationdate><title>A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</title><author>Grey, Richard ; Walsh, Stephen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b253eba11a657da95a691f0f1ebb4dafdb6b6aa88ff9b9dbb728b9b1e82957a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence</topic><topic>Head & neck cancer</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Maxillofacial</topic><topic>Medical referrals</topic><topic>Mouth Neoplasms</topic><topic>Oral cancer</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>State Medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grey, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Stephen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</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>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>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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British dental journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grey, Richard</au><au>Walsh, Stephen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust</atitle><jtitle>British dental journal</jtitle><stitle>Br Dent J</stitle><addtitle>Br Dent J</addtitle><date>2019-09-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>227</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>403</spage><epage>409</epage><pages>403-409</pages><issn>0007-0610</issn><eissn>1476-5373</eissn><abstract>Introduction
The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to ensure their patients get fast and effective treatment.
Aims
1) To evaluate adherence to guidelines of electronic 2WR referrals for HNC sent to Western Sussex Hospitals Trust from GDPs in Sussex; 2) to determine the detection rate of oral malignancies from these referrals; 3) to determine the success of the maxillofacial unit in seeing referred patients within two weeks.
Materials and methods
Two hundred and nineteen randomised electronic 2WR referrals were analysed for adherence to the guidelines for referral of suspected oral cancer. Patient waiting times, subsequent correspondence and pathology results were analysed.
Results
One hundred and thirty-five referrals (62%) were deemed to be compliant with the NICE NG12 guidelines, while 186 referred patients (85%) were seen within the two-week time frame. Six referrals (2%) resulted in a positive detection of malignancy (a lower rate compared to similar previous studies).
Discussion
There are several possible reasons for the poor rate of guideline adherence from GDPs, such as pressure to refer defensively and a lack of knowledge of referral guidelines or oral pathology. This may contribute to a poor detection rate, although there may be other contributing factors.
Conclusions
Thirty-eight percent of electronic 2WR referrals from GDPs were deemed inappropriate; ongoing education is required to minimise these inappropriate referrals. Patients must be made aware of the reason for their referral to promote attendance. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for such a low detection rate.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>31520045</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41415-019-0668-x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-0610 |
ispartof | British dental journal, 2019-09, Vol.227 (5), p.403-409 |
issn | 0007-0610 1476-5373 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2290904520 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Dentistry Guideline Adherence Head & neck cancer Head and Neck Neoplasms Hospitals Humans Malignancy Maxillofacial Medical referrals Mouth Neoplasms Oral cancer Patients Referral and Consultation State Medicine |
title | A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T21%3A21%3A16IST&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=A%20review%20of%20the%20electronic%20two-week%20rule%20referrals%20for%20head%20and%20neck%20cancer%20to%20Western%20Sussex%20Hospitals%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust&rft.jtitle=British%20dental%20journal&rft.au=Grey,%20Richard&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.volume=227&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=403&rft.epage=409&rft.pages=403-409&rft.issn=0007-0610&rft.eissn=1476-5373&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41415-019-0668-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2290904520%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=2290064277&rft_id=info:pmid/31520045&rfr_iscdi=true |