improving early diagnosis of cancer how can primary care help save 5000 lives? dr phil sawyer mvcn...
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Early Diagnosis of CancerHow Can Primary Care Help Save 5000 Lives?
Dr Phil SawyerMVCN Primary Care Lead
HVCCG Cancer Lead
content
• Context• Improving early Diagnosis of Ovarian cancer• Improving Early Diagnosis of Colorectal cancer• Tools to help us in Primary Care• Reflective practice
– Practice profiles– RCGP audits– Safety-netting
Saving 5000 Lives
• Cancer Reform Strategy• European bench-marking studies• NHS outcomes framework
– domain 1: Reducing Premature Mortality
• NAEDI – public, primary care, screening & diagnostics
• Mike Richards film
Ovarian Cancer
• Awareness Campaign
• Film
• Questions or comments?
• Resource pack
Colorectal Cancer
• Awareness Campaign
• Film
• Questions or comments?
• Resource pack
Risk Assessment Tools
• Evidence base• Help inform decision re further
investigation or referral• Clinical context remains crucial• Different models exist
– Willie Hamilton’s RATs– Qcancer www.qcancer.org
Resource packs
• Colorectal & Ovary…• BCOC campaign information
– Patient, Clinician, Practice staff
• Film• RATs• Referral guidance & proforma• Education module• MDT information *
Practice Profiles
• Background, Data sources, Purpose– in public domain
• Reflective practice not performance management
• NCIN format• MVCN peer-comparison format **• How you might use the information
Practice population (2008/09): 17,377
PCT population (all practices): 1,162,862
DomainPractice indicator
value
1 1922
2 Socio-economic deprivation, "Quintile 1" = affluent (% of population income deprived) Quintile 1
3 New cancer cases (Crude incidence rate: new cases per 100,000 population) 42
4 Cancer deaths (Crude mortality rate: deaths per 100,000 population) 1
5 Prevalent cancer cases (% of practice population on practice cancer register) 164
6 Females, 50-70, screened for breast cancer in last 36 months (3 year coverage, %) 1489
7 Females, 50-70, screened for breast cancer within 6 months of invitation (Uptake, %) 1460
8 Females, 25-64, attending cervical screening within target period (3.5 or 5.5 year coverage, %) 3739
9 Persons, 60-69, screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months (2.5 year coverage, %) 880
10 Persons, 60-69, screened for bowel cancer within 6 months of invitation (Uptake, %) 445
11 Two-week wait referrals (Number per 100,000 population) 241
12 Two-week wait referrals (Indirectly age standardised referral ratio) 241
13 Two-week referrals with cancer (Conversion rate: % of all TWW referrals with cancer) 16
14 Number of new cancer cases treated (% of which are TWW referrals) 40
15 Two-week wait referrals with suspected breast cancer (Number per 100,000 population) 90
Ca
nce
r sc
ree
nin
g
Practice Population aged 65+ (% of population in this practice aged 65+)
Cancer indicators in (E82060) PARKBURY HSE - SAGE, HERTFORDSHIRE PCT (5QV)
Indicator (Rate or Proportion in brackets)
Ca
nce
r W
aiti
ng
Tim
es
These profiles provide comparative information for benchmarking and reviewing variations at a General Practice level. They are intended to help primary care think about clinical practice and service delivery in cancer and, in particular, early detection a
De
mo
gra
ph
ics
Please note: Bowel screening indicators are based on less than 30 but over 12 months of data.
11 Two-week wait referrals (Number per 100,000 population)
12 Two-week wait referrals (Indirectly age standardised referral ratio)
13 Two-week referrals with cancer (Conversion rate: % of all TWW referrals with cancer)
14 Number of new cancer cases treated (% of which are TWW referrals)
15 Two-week wait referrals with suspected breast cancer (Number per 100,000 population)
16 Two-week wait referrals with suspected lower GI cancer (Number per 100,000 population)
17 Two-week wait referrals with suspected lung cancer (Number per 100,000 population)
18 Two-week wait referrals with suspected skin cancer (Number per 100,000 population)
19 In-patient or day-case colonoscopy procedures (Number per 100,000 population)
20 In-patient or day-case sigmoidoscopy procedures (Number per 100,000 population)
21 In-patient or day-case upper GI endoscopy procedures (Number per 100,000 population)
22 Number of emergency admissions with cancer (Number per 100,000 population)
23 Number of emergency presentations (% of presentations)
24 Number of managed referral presentations (% of presentations)
25 Number of other presentations (% of presentations)
Pre
sen
tatio
n &
dia
gn
ost
ics
Ca
nce
r W
aiti
ng
Tim
es
Introduction
Purpose of the report
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the key diagnosis and referral indicators for practices across Herts Valley CCG.
Eight key indicators are reviewed at practice level, highlighting those practices which are above or below the national target, or outside the recommended range. The key indicators are:
• Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months• Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period• Percentage of persons aged 60–69 screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months• Two Week Wait referral ratio• Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancer• Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals• Number of emergency admissions with cancer per 100,000 population • Route of presentation
The report also considers the demographic profile of the CCG and how demographics relate to the performance across the eight key practice level indicators. The following demographics have been included:
• Practice Population aged 65+• Socio-economic deprivation• New cancer cases• Cancer deaths• Prevalent cancer cases
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit 2012Maps contain: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012 Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012, National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2012.
Cancer indicators: Summary of practice performance
KeyNumber of targets achieved
Practices are shaded to show the number of indicators that are above the national target or are within the recommended range1.
Number of cancer indicators above the national target or within the
recommended range
63% of practices failed to meet half of the recommended ranges for the eight cancer indicators.
Practices within recommended range
Indicator2 Pr. %% Females aged 50-70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months
28 42%
% Females aged 25-64 screened for cervical cancer in last 42/66 months
10 15%
% Persons aged 60-69 screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months
16 24%
Two-week wait referral ratio 30 45%% of two-week referrals with cancer
35 52%
% of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals
36 54%
Number of emergency admissions with cancer per 100,000 popn
64 96%
Number of managed referral presentations per 100,000 popn
46 69%
Recommended ranges achievedNo. of indicators
Pr. %
7 to 8 4 6%
5 to 6 21 31%
3 to 4 29 43%
1 to 2 13 19%
Total practices 67 100%
1See appendix (page 48) for targets / recommended ranges2See appendix (page 31-40) for full definitions.
Maps contain: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012, Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012, National
Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2012.
Practice performance ranked within Herts Valleys CCG
Cancer indicators: Summary of practice performance ranked
KeyQuartiles for combined indicator score
Practices are shaded to show where they rank within the CCG for their overall performance across the indicators.
Combined indicator score
The eight indicators reviewed in this report have been combined into a single score1, as a proxy for overall performance across the indicators. The score is used to rank the practices within the CCG.
1See appendix (page 30) for methodology.Maps contain: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012,
Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012, National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2012
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Gra
nge
Stre
etM
idw
ayAn
nand
ale
Hou
seEl
ms M
PRo
thsc
hild
Hou
sePa
rkfie
ld M
CM
ilton
Hou
seBo
xwel
l Roa
dVi
llage
Hig
hvie
wM
anor
Stre
etD
aven
port
Hou
seTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryLi
ncol
n H
ouse
Arch
way
Ever
est H
ouse
Gos
som
s En
d EC
ULo
dge
Park
woo
d D
rive
Vine
Hou
se H
CEn
glan
dRe
dbou
rn H
CBa
ldw
ins
Lane
Fern
ville
Gad
e H
ouse
Shee
pcot
MC
Coln
e Pr
King
s Lan
gley
NH
S H
erts
Val
leys
CCG
Hig
hfiel
dBe
nnet
ts E
ndM
anor
Vie
wAt
tenb
orou
ghN
ew R
oad
The
Surg
ery
(Dr.
Sepa
i)M
altin
gsH
aver
field
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Fairb
rook
MC
Coac
h H
ouse
Gro
ve M
CG
rove
Hill
MC
Park
bury
Hou
seG
arst
on M
CLi
ttle
Bush
eyH
arve
y G
roup
Pr
Cons
ultin
g Ro
oms
Theo
bald
MC
Hat
field
Roa
dTu
dor
Woo
dhal
l Far
m M
CLa
ttim
ore
Abbo
tsw
ood
MC
Coln
ey M
CSc
hopw
ick
Park
End
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adCa
llow
land
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Red
Hou
seEl
ms S
urge
ryCa
ssio
-E8
2603
2 Co
lerid
ge C
resc
ent
Cass
io -
E826
13Up
ton
Road
Cass
io -
E826
56Pa
thfin
der P
rCa
ssio
-E8
2630
Hol
ywel
l
3 ye
ar c
over
age,
%Percentage of females aged 50–70 screened for breast cancer in last 36 months3 year coverage (2008/09 – 2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 72.5%CCG mean average = 70.4%CCG practice range = 46.5% to 82.9%Best practice: At or above 70%
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The number of females registered to the practice screened adequately in previous 36 months divided by the number of eligible females on last day of the review period. (See appendix page 31 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.
Aim to be above the national target (70%)Consider actively encouraging patients to
participate in screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts.
GPs can be influential here.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Man
or S
treet
Mid
way
Elm
s MP
Villa
geKi
ngs L
angl
eyTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryRe
dbou
rn H
CAr
chw
ayD
aven
port
Hou
seRo
thsc
hild
Hou
seTh
e Su
rger
y (D
r. Se
pai)
Hav
erfie
ldPa
rkw
ood
Driv
eM
ilton
Hou
seLo
dge
Benn
etts
End
Vine
Hou
se H
CBa
ldw
ins
Lane
Boxw
ell R
oad
Gra
nge
Stre
etAn
nand
ale
Hou
seCh
orle
ywoo
d H
CG
osso
ms
End
ECU
New
Roa
dG
rove
Hill
MC
Shee
pcot
MC
Tudo
rM
altin
gsH
ighv
iew
NH
S H
erts
Val
leys
CCG
Woo
dhal
l Far
m M
C30
5 Pr
estw
ick
Road
Atte
nbor
ough
Red
Hou
seM
anor
Vie
wPa
rkfie
ld M
CPa
rkbu
ry H
ouse
Fern
ville
Ever
est H
ouse
Gar
ston
MC
Engl
and
Coln
ey M
CH
ighfi
eld
Hat
field
Roa
dCo
lne
PrLi
ncol
n H
ouse
Hol
ywel
lPa
rk E
ndH
arve
y G
roup
Pr
Gad
e H
ouse
Latti
mor
eSu
ther
grey
Hou
se M
CFa
irbro
ok M
C2
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
tCo
ach
Hou
seLi
ttle
Bush
eyTh
eoba
ld M
CSc
hopw
ick
Elm
s Sur
gery
Cass
io -
E826
03G
rove
MC
Callo
wla
ndCa
ssio
-E8
2613
Path
finde
r Pr
Cons
ultin
g Ro
oms
Abbo
tsw
ood
MC
Cass
io -
E826
56Up
ton
Road
Cass
io -
E826
30
3.5
or 5
.5 y
ear
cove
rage
Percentage of females aged 25–64 attending cervical screening within target period3.5 or 5.5 year coverage (2005/06Q3 – 2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 75.3%CCG mean average = 76.5%CCG practice range = 59.9% to 85.2%Best practice: At or above 80%
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The overall cervical screening coverage: the number of women registered at the practice screened adequately in the previous 42 months (if aged 24-49) or 66 months (if aged 50-64) divided by the number of eligible women on last day of review period. (See appendix page 32 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Data was extracted from the NHAIS via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.
Aim to be above the national target (80%)Consider actively encouraging patients to
participate in screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts.
GPs can be influential here.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
The
New
Sur
gery
Milt
on H
ouse
Villa
geM
idw
ayRe
dbou
rn H
CAr
chw
ayLi
ncol
n H
ouse
Elm
s MP
King
s Lan
gley
Boxw
ell R
oad
Park
field
MC
Bald
win
s La
neG
rang
e St
reet
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Man
or S
treet
New
Roa
dH
arve
y G
roup
Pr
Anna
ndal
e H
ouse
Ever
est H
ouse
Lodg
eVi
ne H
ouse
HC
Roth
schi
ld H
ouse
Hav
erfie
ldEn
glan
dG
ade
Hou
sePa
rkbu
ry H
ouse
Coln
e Pr
Hig
hvie
wAt
tenb
orou
ghN
HS
Her
ts V
alle
ys C
CGBe
nnet
ts E
ndSh
eepc
ot M
CRe
d H
ouse
Park
woo
d D
rive
Man
or V
iew
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Tudo
rCo
lney
MC
Coac
h H
ouse
Callo
wla
ndG
osso
ms
End
ECU
Mal
tings
Elm
s Sur
gery
Gro
ve H
ill M
CFe
rnvi
lleLi
ttle
Bush
eyG
arst
on M
CLa
ttim
ore
Park
End
The
Surg
ery
(Dr.
Sepa
i)H
ighfi
eld
Theo
bald
MC
Hat
field
Roa
dFa
irbro
ok M
CSc
hopw
ick
Abbo
tsw
ood
MC
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adW
oodh
all F
arm
MC
Gro
ve M
C2
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
tCo
nsul
ting
Room
sCa
ssio
-E8
2603
Upto
n Ro
adCa
ssio
-E8
2613
Cass
io -
E826
56Ca
ssio
-E8
2630
Hol
ywel
lPa
thfin
der P
r
2.5
year
cov
erag
ePercentage of persons aged 60–69 screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months2.5 year coverage (2008/09Q3 – 2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 57.4%CCG mean average = 56.0%CCG practice range = 34.6% to 65.8%Best practice: At or above 60%
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The number of persons registered to the practice screened adequately in the previous 30 months divided by the number of eligible persons on last day of the review period. (See appendix page 33 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Bowel Cancer Screening System (BCCS) via the Open Exeter system. Data was collected by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.
Aim to be above the national target (60%)Consider actively encouraging patients to
participate in screening programmes with letters or opportunistic prompts.
GPs can be influential here.
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Path
finde
r Pr
Gos
som
s En
d EC
ULa
ttim
ore
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adVi
ne H
ouse
HC
Atte
nbor
ough
Park
field
MC
Cass
io -
E826
30Ar
chw
ayBa
ldw
ins
Lane
Mid
way
Anna
ndal
e H
ouse
Tudo
rBe
nnet
ts E
ndSh
eepc
ot M
CEn
glan
dH
ighv
iew
Coln
e Pr
Cass
io -
E826
03N
ew R
oad
Roth
schi
ld H
ouse
Fairb
rook
MC
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Theo
bald
MC
Park
bury
Hou
seG
arst
on M
CH
ighfi
eld
Lodg
eG
rang
e St
reet
Milt
on H
ouse
Mal
tings
Har
vey
Gro
up P
rTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryH
olyw
ell
Gad
e H
ouse
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
Scho
pwic
kPa
rk E
ndUp
ton
Road
Gro
ve M
CFe
rnvi
lleBo
xwel
l Roa
dM
anor
Vie
wPa
rkw
ood
Driv
eRe
dbou
rn H
CEv
eres
t Hou
seCa
ssio
-E8
2613
Woo
dhal
l Far
m M
CCa
ssio
-E8
2656
Linc
oln
Hou
seH
aver
field
Coac
h H
ouse
Gro
ve H
ill M
CKi
ngs L
angl
eyCa
llow
land
Littl
e Bu
shey
Villa
geTh
e Su
rger
y (D
r. Se
pai)
Man
or S
treet
Red
Hou
seAb
bots
woo
d M
CEl
ms M
PH
atfie
ld R
oad
2 Co
lerid
ge C
resc
ent
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Elm
s Sur
gery
Cons
ultin
g Ro
oms
Coln
ey M
C
Indi
rect
ly a
ge s
tand
ardi
sed
refe
rral r
atio
All practices
CCG
England
National average -20%
National average +20%
Two Week Wait referrals Indirectly age standardised referral ratio (2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 100.0%CCG mean average = n/aCCG practice range = 26.5% to 169.8%Best practice: National average +/- 20%
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The number of Two Week Wait referrals where cancer is suspected multiplied by 100,000 divided by the list size of the practice in question. (See appendix page 34 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Trent Cancer Registry based on Cancer Waiting Times data for England, 2011/12, held on the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database.
KeyAim to be referring within 20% of the England average
two week wait referral rate. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route. You may wish to audit your referrals
against NICE cancer referral guidance.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Elm
s MP
Man
or S
treet
Elm
s Sur
gery
Coln
ey M
CCo
nsul
ting
Room
sTh
e Su
rger
y (D
r. Se
pai)
Abbo
tsw
ood
MC
Hol
ywel
lW
oodh
all F
arm
MC
Anna
ndal
e H
ouse
Park
field
MC
King
s Lan
gley
Red
Hou
se2
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
tLi
ncol
n H
ouse
Upto
n Ro
adCa
ssio
-E8
2656
Villa
geH
aver
field
Gro
ve M
CTh
eoba
ld M
CPa
rkbu
ry H
ouse
Park
woo
d D
rive
Engl
and
Har
vey
Gro
up P
rG
rang
e St
reet
Fairb
rook
MC
Park
End
Man
or V
iew
Coac
h H
ouse
Boxw
ell R
oad
NH
S H
erts
Val
leys
CCG
Coln
e Pr
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Hig
hvie
wRo
thsc
hild
Hou
seEv
eres
t Hou
seSh
eepc
ot M
CG
ade
Hou
seM
ilton
Hou
seG
rove
Hill
MC
Mid
way
New
Roa
dLa
ttim
ore
Fern
ville
Mal
tings
Benn
etts
End
The
New
Sur
gery
Gar
ston
MC
Callo
wla
ndH
ighfi
eld
Littl
e Bu
shey
Lodg
ePa
thfin
der P
rVi
ne H
ouse
HC
Redb
ourn
HC
Tudo
rSc
hopw
ick
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
Atte
nbor
ough
Bald
win
s La
neCh
orle
ywoo
d H
CCa
ssio
-E8
2630
Hat
field
Roa
dG
osso
ms
End
ECU
Arch
way
Cass
io -
E826
0330
5 Pr
estw
ick
Road
Cass
io -
E826
13
Num
ber o
f TW
W re
ferra
ls
% o
f all
TWW
with
can
cer
KeyLeft hand axis
Right hand axis
Percentage of Two Week Wait referrals with cancerConversion rate: Percentage of all Two Week Waits with cancer (2010/11)
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The ‘conversion rate’, i.e., the proportion of Two Week Wait referrals that are subsequently diagnosed with cancer: the number of new cancer cases treated in 2011/12 who were referred through the two week wait route divided by the total number of Two Week Wait referrals in 2011/12. (See appendix page 35 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Trent Cancer Registry based on Cancer Waiting Times data for England, 2011/12, held on the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database.
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 10.6%CCG mean average = 9.4%CCG practice range = 0.0% to 20.2%Recommended range = 8% to 14%
Aim to have conversion rate between 8-14%. Rates outside this range may indicate over/under use of the two week wait referral route. You may wish to audit your referrals against
NICE cancer referral guidance. There is no target number for referral as this depends on practice size and demographics.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Path
finde
r Pr
Latti
mor
eH
arve
y G
roup
Pr
Park
bury
Hou
sePa
rkfie
ld M
CAn
nand
ale
Hou
seG
osso
ms
End
ECU
Hav
erfie
ldG
rang
e St
reet
Coln
e Pr
Gad
e H
ouse
King
s Lan
gley
The
Surg
ery
(Dr.
Sepa
i)En
glan
dM
idw
ayH
ighv
iew
Upto
n Ro
adM
anor
Stre
etN
ew R
oad
Woo
dhal
l Far
m M
CEl
ms M
PG
rove
MC
Cass
io -
E826
56Li
ncol
n H
ouse
Benn
etts
End
Callo
wla
ndRe
d H
ouse
Atte
nbor
ough
Boxw
ell R
oad
Vine
Hou
se H
CM
altin
gsFa
irbro
ok M
CN
HS
Her
ts V
alle
ys C
CGCa
ssio
-E8
2630
Gar
ston
MC
Shee
pcot
MC
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Theo
bald
MC
Tudo
rM
ilton
Hou
seRo
thsc
hild
Hou
seH
olyw
ell
Park
End
Coln
ey M
CH
ighfi
eld
Park
woo
d D
rive
Man
or V
iew
Lodg
eSc
hopw
ick
Arch
way
Coac
h H
ouse
Fern
ville
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
Abbo
tsw
ood
MC
Littl
e Bu
shey
Villa
geRe
dbou
rn H
CEv
eres
t Hou
se2
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
tCo
nsul
ting
Room
sTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryBa
ldw
ins
Lane
Cass
io -
E826
03El
ms S
urge
ryG
rove
Hill
MC
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Hat
field
Roa
d30
5 Pr
estw
ick
Road
Cass
io -
E826
13
% o
f new
can
cer
case
s ar
e TW
W re
ferra
ls
All practices
CCG
England
Rec.range > 40%
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The proportion of new cancer cases treated who were referred through the Two Week Wait route. (See appendix page 36 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Trent Cancer Registry based on Cancer Waiting Times data for England, 2011/12, held on the DH Cancer Waiting Times Database.
Percentage of new cancer cases treated which are Two Week Wait referrals (2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 46.5%CCG mean average = 40.1%CCG practice range = 0.0% to 71.4%Recommended range: > 40%
Key
Aim to be above the line and have more of your cancer cases diagnosed through the two week wait referral route. Consider doing the
RCGP cancer diagnosis audit.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Cass
io -
E826
132
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
tH
olyw
ell
The
New
Sur
gery
Gos
som
s En
d EC
UW
oodh
all F
arm
MC
Arch
way
Cass
io -
E826
56H
atfie
ld R
oad
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adLo
dge
Upto
n Ro
adPa
thfin
der P
rM
altin
gsM
idw
ayCh
orle
ywoo
d H
CG
rove
Hill
MC
Har
vey
Gro
up P
rSh
eepc
ot M
CSc
hopw
ick
Latti
mor
eH
ighfi
eld
Coln
ey M
CCa
ssio
-E8
2630
Elm
s MP
Milt
on H
ouse
Villa
geTh
e Su
rger
y (D
r. Se
pai)
Linc
oln
Hou
sePa
rk E
ndCa
llow
land
Littl
e Bu
shey
Man
or S
treet
Red
Hou
seG
rang
e St
reet
Anna
ndal
e H
ouse
Hav
erfie
ldBo
xwel
l Roa
dRe
dbou
rn H
CCo
ach
Hou
sePa
rkw
ood
Driv
eH
ighv
iew
Benn
etts
End
Roth
schi
ld H
ouse
NH
S H
erts
Val
leys
CCG
Park
bury
Hou
seG
rove
MC
Man
or V
iew
Elm
s Sur
gery
King
s Lan
gley
Gar
ston
MC
Coln
e Pr
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
Vine
Hou
se H
CFe
rnvi
lleAb
bots
woo
d M
CTu
dor
Atte
nbor
ough
Theo
bald
MC
New
Roa
dG
ade
Hou
seEn
glan
dCo
nsul
ting
Room
sEv
eres
t Hou
seSu
ther
grey
Hou
se M
CFa
irbro
ok M
CCa
ssio
-E8
2603
Bald
win
s La
nePa
rkfie
ld M
C
Num
ber p
er 1
00,0
00 p
opul
atio
n
All practices
CCG
England
Rec. range < National average
Number of emergency admissions with cancer per 100,000 populationNumber per 100,000 population (2010/11)
Summary statisticsEngland mean average = 587CCG mean average = 446CCG practice range = 83 to 933Recommended range: National average (587)
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: The number of persons admitted to hospital as an inpatient or day-case via an emergency admission multiplied by 100,000 divided by the number of persons in the practice list, expressed as a rate per 100,000 persons. (See appendix page 37 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for 1st March 2011 to 29th February 2012 was taken from the UKACR “Cancer HES” offload originally sourced from the NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care HES dataset.
Key
Aim to minimize the number of cancer patients requiring emergency admissions. Try to proactively manage cases. Consider using the RCGP Significant
Event Audit to reflect on cases.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adAr
chw
ayTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryW
oodh
all F
arm
MC
Park
End
Dav
enpo
rt H
ouse
Gro
ve H
ill M
CRe
d H
ouse
Har
vey
Gro
up P
rCa
ssio
-E8
2630
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Boxw
ell R
oad
Mid
way
Coln
ey M
CM
ilton
Hou
seVi
llage
Man
or S
treet
Atte
nbor
ough
Anna
ndal
e H
ouse
Man
or V
iew
New
Roa
dEv
eres
t Hou
seSh
eepc
ot M
CRe
dbou
rn H
CM
altin
gsG
ade
Hou
seKi
ngs L
angl
eyBe
nnet
ts E
ndH
atfie
ld R
oad
Roth
schi
ld H
ouse
Gra
nge
Stre
etVi
ne H
ouse
HC
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Latti
mor
eH
ighv
iew
Linc
oln
Hou
seLo
dge
NH
S H
erts
Val
leys
CCG
Cass
io -
E826
03Pa
rkw
ood
Driv
ePa
rkfie
ld M
CFe
rnvi
lleEn
glan
dTh
e Su
rger
y (D
r. Se
pai)
Coac
h H
ouse
Bald
win
s La
neCo
lne
PrEl
ms M
PH
ighfi
eld
Callo
wla
ndPa
rkbu
ry H
ouse
Tudo
rEl
ms S
urge
ryLi
ttle
Bush
eyAb
bots
woo
d M
CCo
nsul
ting
Room
sG
osso
ms
End
ECU
Scho
pwic
kG
rove
MC
Upto
n Ro
adG
arst
on M
CPa
thfin
der P
rH
olyw
ell
Hav
erfie
ldTh
eoba
ld M
CCa
ssio
-E8
2613
Fairb
rook
MC
2 Co
lerid
ge C
resc
ent
Cass
io -
E826
56
% o
f pre
sent
atio
ns
Route of presentationPercentage of presentations by route (2008)
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit
Definition: Proportion of persons diagnosed via an emergency, managed referral or other route. (See appendix page 38-40 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Routes to Diagnosis project database.
1Routes to Diagnosis methodology, available online at: http://ncin.org.uk
Emergency presentation
sOther
presentationsManaged ref. presentations
England mean average
23.7% 27.1% 49.2%
CCG mean average 22.1% 27.9% 50.0%
CCG practice range 0% to 66.7% 0% to 58.1% 0% to 100%
Summary statistics
Aim to have as few emergency presentations of cancer and more of the cases detected through managed
referral routes. Consider using the RCGP significant Event Audit to reflect on cases and using Risk Assessment Tools
to help guide investigation and referral.
Key
England
CCG
Emergency presentations Managed referral presentations
Other presentations
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Park
field
MC
Bald
win
s La
neAn
nand
ale
Hou
seLi
ttle
Bush
eyM
idw
ayEl
ms S
urge
ryAr
chw
ayCo
lne
PrG
osso
ms
End
ECU
Linc
oln
Hou
seBo
xwel
l Roa
dN
ew R
oad
Chor
leyw
ood
HC
Atte
nbor
ough
Villa
geM
ilton
Hou
seSc
hopw
ick
Park
woo
d D
rive
Man
or S
treet
Vine
Hou
se H
CTh
e N
ew S
urge
ryG
rang
e St
reet
The
Surg
ery
(Dr.
Sepa
i)G
ade
Hou
seEv
eres
t Hou
seRe
dbou
rn H
CCo
lney
MC
Tudo
rD
aven
port
Hou
seSh
eepc
ot M
CH
aver
field
Hig
hvie
wRo
thsc
hild
Hou
seRe
d H
ouse
King
s Lan
gley
Man
or V
iew
Theo
bald
MC
Elm
s MP
Suth
ergr
ey H
ouse
MC
Fern
ville
Har
vey
Gro
up P
rCo
nsul
ting
Room
sFa
irbro
ok M
CLa
ttim
ore
Benn
etts
End
Gar
ston
MC
Lodg
eCa
ssio
-E8
2603
305
Pres
twic
k Ro
adAb
bots
woo
d M
CPa
rkbu
ry H
ouse
Park
End
Mal
tings
Coac
h H
ouse
Gro
ve H
ill M
CH
ighfi
eld
Upto
n Ro
adG
rove
MC
Cass
io -
E826
13H
atfie
ld R
oad
Callo
wla
ndPa
thfin
der P
rCa
ssio
-E8
2656
Cass
io -
E826
30W
oodh
all F
arm
MC
Hol
ywel
l2
Cole
ridge
Cre
scen
t
% o
f pop
ulat
ion
aged
65+
Q1 - highest ranked combined scoreQ2Q3Q4 - lowest ranked combined scoreCCG meanNational average
Population aged 65+% of practice population aged 65+
Data source: GP Practice Profiles for cancer, Cancer Commissioning Toolkit 2010/11
Definition: The number of persons registered at the practice aged 65+, April 2011. (See appendix page 42 for full definition)
Indicator source(s): Attribution Dataset, South East Public Health Observatory.
Key
The height of the bars show the demographic value. Practices are highlighted in green or red depending on whether they are ranked within the top or bottom 25% for their overall performance across the indicators (see appendix page 30 for further information).
RCGP Audits
• Cancer Diagnosis audit– 6 month retrospective brief case analysis– Excluding screen detection & NMSC– Route to diagnosis– Diagnostic delays
• Cancer Significant Event Analysis– www.rcgp.org.uk/sea-pilot – Detailed reflective case analysis– Identified learning & action– RCGP Peer reviewed process– Good & bad examples…
Recommended safety netting information to communicate to the patient
• High Priority Cancer Safety Netting Advice (Include in patient communication)
• The likely time course (time to resolution of self-limiting condition) of current symptoms (e.g. cough, bowel symptoms, pain)
• Specific information about when and how to re-consult if symptoms do not resolve in the expected time course
• Specific warning symptoms and signs of serious disease (e.g. cancer)• Who should make a follow up appointment with the GP, if needed (usually requesting
the patient make the appointment, sometimes the doctor)
• Intermediate Priority (Consider including in patient communication)
• If a diagnosis is uncertain, give a clear explanation for the reasons for tests or investigations (e.g. to exclude the possibility of serious disease or cancer)
• If a diagnosis is uncertain, that uncertainty should be communicated to the patient
Recommended safety netting actions that GPs should take during or shortly after the consultation
• High Priority Cancer Safety Netting Advice (Include in consultations)
• Safety net advice should be documented in the medical notes• GPs should consider referral after repeated consultations for the same symptom
where the diagnosis is uncertain (e.g. three strikes and you are in).• The GP should ensure that the patient understands the safety netting advice• GPs should take additional measures to ensure that safety netting advice is
understood in patients with language and literacy barriers• GPs should keep up to date on current guidelines for urgent referral for suspected
cancer
• Intermediate Priority (Consider including in consultations)
• If symptoms do not resolve, further investigations should be conducted even if previous tests are negative
• Safety netting advice should be given verbally
Recommended safety netting actions for Practices• High Priority Safety Netting advice (Ensure patient communication procedures are in place)• procedures in place to ensure that patients are aware of how to obtain results of investigations• ensure that current contact details are available for patients undergoing tests/investigations or referrals• a system for communicating abnormal test results to patients• a system for contacting patients with abnormal test results who fail to attend for follow up
• High Priority (Ensure reliable practice systems are in place)• Practice systems should be in place to document that all results have been viewed, and acted• upon appropriately• Practices should have policies in place to ensure that tests/investigations ordered by locums are• followed up• Practices should conduct significant event analysis for delayed diagnoses of cancer (focusing on• symptoms, signs, diagnostic procedures, continuity of care and reasons for delay)
• Intermediate Priority (Consider using reliable practice systems)• Practice systems should be able to highlight repeat consultations for unexplained recurrent• symptoms/signs• Practices should conduct an annual audit of new cancer diagnoses• Practices should participate in cancer awareness campaigns• Practice staff involved in processing /logging of results should be aware of reasons for urgent• referral under the 2 week wait
Other resources
• Macmillan **• NICE referral guidelines• MVCN website• Learning modules on BMJ site, RCGP,
doctors.net, Univardis
and don’t forget…• Acute Oncology
– Malignant spinal cord compression– Neutropenic sepsis– Hypercalcaemia– Side effects of treatment (mucositis, vomiting)
• Late Effects of treatments• Relapse and Recurrence• Survivorship• Palliative Care• Prevention
Questions/comments
Thank you!