Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway
The ‘2-week wait’ scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of cancer 2005-10, Vol.93 (8), p.905-908 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 908 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 905 |
container_title | British journal of cancer |
container_volume | 93 |
creator | Lewis, N R Le Jeune, I Baldwin, D R |
description | The ‘2-week wait’ scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway for lung cancer. Medical records of all patients referred with suspected lung cancer were reviewed for the year prior to introduction of the 2-week wait and DoH guidelines and for the subsequent 24 months. A total of 1044 patients were referred, of which 650 (62%) were found to have malignancy. In the first and second years of the 2-week wait scheme, only 57 and 58% were referred via the scheme. Department of Health guidelines were followed in all but a small number. Median wait time increased from 7 to 9 days. The proportion of all urgent referrals seen within 2 weeks fell from 84 to 71%. The proportion of non-2-week wait urgent referrals being seen within 2 weeks was only 75.5% in the first year of the scheme and fell further to 60.9% in the second year. The absolute number of referrals rose and the proportion having cancer fell from 78% before the scheme to 46% in the second year. During this time, there was no change in stage at presentation. Symptoms were not helpful in discriminating benign from malignant disease and haemoptysis was actually more common in the benign group. However, over 50% of patients in the benign group were appropriate to be seen in secondary care. The 2-week wait scheme has so far failed to reduced waiting times for lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that this is partly due to continued usage of urgent referral routes outside the 2-week wait scheme and secondly due to a large increase in referrals, probably generated by the introduction of the DoH guidelines. Some adjustment to the guidelines may be appropriate to reflect more emphasis on the early performance of a chest X-ray and the use of direct access to other imaging modalities such as CT. Patients referred outside the 2-week wait are disadvantaged and thus practitioners would be wise to refer all their patients through the 2-week wait system. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602798 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2361660</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>958877311</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-3b245478d72ab4ff823c339e5c602707bde98c4b6afdcd8a37ef7061a555d45c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc2P0zAQxS0EYsvClSOykOCWrj-S2LkgoRVf0kpc2LPlOOPWIbWL7WzVA_87rhpRQOJk2fOb5zfzEHpJyZoSLm_SuO5Hs25bwkQnH6EVbTirqGTiMVoRQkRFOkau0LOUxnLtiBRP0RVtqewaRlfo570fIOI5u8klnV3wOFict4BZdQD4jg_aZey8y65UHwDbEPE0-w022pvS2R_xPrqdjsfyEgFrP2CXEwZrwWRc9E5ic9yAzziChRj1hPc6bw_6-Bw9sXpK8GI5r9H9xw_fbj9Xd18_fbl9f1eZWja54j2rm1rIQTDd19ZKxg3nHTTmNDYR_QCdNHXfajuYQWouwArSUt00zVA3hl-jd2fd_dzvYDDFS3GhFuMqaKf-rni3VZvwoBhvadltEXi7CMTwY4aU1c4lA9OkPYQ5qVa2khNZF_D1P-AY5ujLcIqxrhOk7miB1mfIxJBSWcpvJ5SoU6wqjarEqpZYS8OrP_1f8CXHArxZAJ2Mnmws4bh04QQjp0EKd3PmUin5DcSLvf98_Qs7Y73r</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>229970491</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Nature Journals Online</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Lewis, N R ; Le Jeune, I ; Baldwin, D R</creator><creatorcontrib>Lewis, N R ; Le Jeune, I ; Baldwin, D R</creatorcontrib><description>The ‘2-week wait’ scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway for lung cancer. Medical records of all patients referred with suspected lung cancer were reviewed for the year prior to introduction of the 2-week wait and DoH guidelines and for the subsequent 24 months. A total of 1044 patients were referred, of which 650 (62%) were found to have malignancy. In the first and second years of the 2-week wait scheme, only 57 and 58% were referred via the scheme. Department of Health guidelines were followed in all but a small number. Median wait time increased from 7 to 9 days. The proportion of all urgent referrals seen within 2 weeks fell from 84 to 71%. The proportion of non-2-week wait urgent referrals being seen within 2 weeks was only 75.5% in the first year of the scheme and fell further to 60.9% in the second year. The absolute number of referrals rose and the proportion having cancer fell from 78% before the scheme to 46% in the second year. During this time, there was no change in stage at presentation. Symptoms were not helpful in discriminating benign from malignant disease and haemoptysis was actually more common in the benign group. However, over 50% of patients in the benign group were appropriate to be seen in secondary care. The 2-week wait scheme has so far failed to reduced waiting times for lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that this is partly due to continued usage of urgent referral routes outside the 2-week wait scheme and secondly due to a large increase in referrals, probably generated by the introduction of the DoH guidelines. Some adjustment to the guidelines may be appropriate to reflect more emphasis on the early performance of a chest X-ray and the use of direct access to other imaging modalities such as CT. Patients referred outside the 2-week wait are disadvantaged and thus practitioners would be wise to refer all their patients through the 2-week wait system.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1827</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602798</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16189521</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJCAAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Cancer Research ; Clinical Study ; Drug Resistance ; England ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Lung cancer ; Lung Neoplasms - therapy ; Male ; Medical referrals ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Middle Aged ; Molecular Medicine ; Oncology ; Patient Care Team ; Pneumology ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; Radiography, Thoracic ; Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Specialization ; Tumors ; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum ; Waiting Lists</subject><ispartof>British journal of cancer, 2005-10, Vol.93 (8), p.905-908</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2005</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Oct 17, 2005</rights><rights>Copyright © 2005 Cancer Research UK 2005 Cancer Research UK</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-3b245478d72ab4ff823c339e5c602707bde98c4b6afdcd8a37ef7061a555d45c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361660/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361660/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17206166$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16189521$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lewis, N R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le Jeune, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, D R</creatorcontrib><title>Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway</title><title>British journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><description>The ‘2-week wait’ scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway for lung cancer. Medical records of all patients referred with suspected lung cancer were reviewed for the year prior to introduction of the 2-week wait and DoH guidelines and for the subsequent 24 months. A total of 1044 patients were referred, of which 650 (62%) were found to have malignancy. In the first and second years of the 2-week wait scheme, only 57 and 58% were referred via the scheme. Department of Health guidelines were followed in all but a small number. Median wait time increased from 7 to 9 days. The proportion of all urgent referrals seen within 2 weeks fell from 84 to 71%. The proportion of non-2-week wait urgent referrals being seen within 2 weeks was only 75.5% in the first year of the scheme and fell further to 60.9% in the second year. The absolute number of referrals rose and the proportion having cancer fell from 78% before the scheme to 46% in the second year. During this time, there was no change in stage at presentation. Symptoms were not helpful in discriminating benign from malignant disease and haemoptysis was actually more common in the benign group. However, over 50% of patients in the benign group were appropriate to be seen in secondary care. The 2-week wait scheme has so far failed to reduced waiting times for lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that this is partly due to continued usage of urgent referral routes outside the 2-week wait scheme and secondly due to a large increase in referrals, probably generated by the introduction of the DoH guidelines. Some adjustment to the guidelines may be appropriate to reflect more emphasis on the early performance of a chest X-ray and the use of direct access to other imaging modalities such as CT. Patients referred outside the 2-week wait are disadvantaged and thus practitioners would be wise to refer all their patients through the 2-week wait system.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Clinical Study</subject><subject>Drug Resistance</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical referrals</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Molecular Medicine</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patient Care Team</subject><subject>Pneumology</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>Radiography, Thoracic</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Specialization</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum</subject><subject>Waiting Lists</subject><issn>0007-0920</issn><issn>1532-1827</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc2P0zAQxS0EYsvClSOykOCWrj-S2LkgoRVf0kpc2LPlOOPWIbWL7WzVA_87rhpRQOJk2fOb5zfzEHpJyZoSLm_SuO5Hs25bwkQnH6EVbTirqGTiMVoRQkRFOkau0LOUxnLtiBRP0RVtqewaRlfo570fIOI5u8klnV3wOFict4BZdQD4jg_aZey8y65UHwDbEPE0-w022pvS2R_xPrqdjsfyEgFrP2CXEwZrwWRc9E5ic9yAzziChRj1hPc6bw_6-Bw9sXpK8GI5r9H9xw_fbj9Xd18_fbl9f1eZWja54j2rm1rIQTDd19ZKxg3nHTTmNDYR_QCdNHXfajuYQWouwArSUt00zVA3hl-jd2fd_dzvYDDFS3GhFuMqaKf-rni3VZvwoBhvadltEXi7CMTwY4aU1c4lA9OkPYQ5qVa2khNZF_D1P-AY5ujLcIqxrhOk7miB1mfIxJBSWcpvJ5SoU6wqjarEqpZYS8OrP_1f8CXHArxZAJ2Mnmws4bh04QQjp0EKd3PmUin5DcSLvf98_Qs7Y73r</recordid><startdate>20051017</startdate><enddate>20051017</enddate><creator>Lewis, N R</creator><creator>Le Jeune, I</creator><creator>Baldwin, D R</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</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>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051017</creationdate><title>Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway</title><author>Lewis, N R ; Le Jeune, I ; Baldwin, D R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-3b245478d72ab4ff823c339e5c602707bde98c4b6afdcd8a37ef7061a555d45c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Clinical Study</topic><topic>Drug Resistance</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical referrals</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Molecular Medicine</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patient Care Team</topic><topic>Pneumology</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>Radiography, Thoracic</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Specialization</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum</topic><topic>Waiting Lists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lewis, N R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le Jeune, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, D R</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA/Free Journals</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS 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>Public Health 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>British Nursing Database</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>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lewis, N R</au><au>Le Jeune, I</au><au>Baldwin, D R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway</atitle><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle><stitle>Br J Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><date>2005-10-17</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>905</spage><epage>908</epage><pages>905-908</pages><issn>0007-0920</issn><eissn>1532-1827</eissn><coden>BJCAAI</coden><abstract>The ‘2-week wait’ scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway for lung cancer. Medical records of all patients referred with suspected lung cancer were reviewed for the year prior to introduction of the 2-week wait and DoH guidelines and for the subsequent 24 months. A total of 1044 patients were referred, of which 650 (62%) were found to have malignancy. In the first and second years of the 2-week wait scheme, only 57 and 58% were referred via the scheme. Department of Health guidelines were followed in all but a small number. Median wait time increased from 7 to 9 days. The proportion of all urgent referrals seen within 2 weeks fell from 84 to 71%. The proportion of non-2-week wait urgent referrals being seen within 2 weeks was only 75.5% in the first year of the scheme and fell further to 60.9% in the second year. The absolute number of referrals rose and the proportion having cancer fell from 78% before the scheme to 46% in the second year. During this time, there was no change in stage at presentation. Symptoms were not helpful in discriminating benign from malignant disease and haemoptysis was actually more common in the benign group. However, over 50% of patients in the benign group were appropriate to be seen in secondary care. The 2-week wait scheme has so far failed to reduced waiting times for lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that this is partly due to continued usage of urgent referral routes outside the 2-week wait scheme and secondly due to a large increase in referrals, probably generated by the introduction of the DoH guidelines. Some adjustment to the guidelines may be appropriate to reflect more emphasis on the early performance of a chest X-ray and the use of direct access to other imaging modalities such as CT. Patients referred outside the 2-week wait are disadvantaged and thus practitioners would be wise to refer all their patients through the 2-week wait system.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>16189521</pmid><doi>10.1038/sj.bjc.6602798</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-0920 |
ispartof | British journal of cancer, 2005-10, Vol.93 (8), p.905-908 |
issn | 0007-0920 1532-1827 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2361660 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Nature Journals Online; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Biological and medical sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Cancer Research Clinical Study Drug Resistance England Epidemiology Female Hospitals Humans Lung cancer Lung Neoplasms - therapy Male Medical referrals Medical research Medical sciences Medicine Middle Aged Molecular Medicine Oncology Patient Care Team Pneumology Practice Guidelines as Topic Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data Primary care Primary Health Care Radiography, Thoracic Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data Retrospective Studies Specialization Tumors Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum Waiting Lists |
title | Under utilisation of the 2-week wait initiative for lung cancer by primary care and its effect on the urgent referral pathway |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T18%3A08%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Under%20utilisation%20of%20the%202-week%20wait%20initiative%20for%20lung%20cancer%20by%20primary%20care%20and%20its%20effect%20on%20the%20urgent%20referral%20pathway&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Lewis,%20N%20R&rft.date=2005-10-17&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=905&rft.epage=908&rft.pages=905-908&rft.issn=0007-0920&rft.eissn=1532-1827&rft.coden=BJCAAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602798&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E958877311%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=229970491&rft_id=info:pmid/16189521&rfr_iscdi=true |