Thousands of cancer referrals not quick enough, says report

[lostinblue 1,989]

Thousands of cancer referrals not quick enough, says report

Figures from 4,000 GP practices in England show only a minority of patients are fast-tracked for investigation by specialist

• The Guardian, Friday 6 December 2013

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said, 'Every patient in the NHS has a right to the very best care – and to see a GP who can spot cancer symptoms early enough to make a difference'. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Getty Images

Thousands of people diagnosed with cancer may be being failed by GPs who are not referring them to specialists quickly enough, contravening official targets.

The figures from around 4,000 GP practices in England show that, in many cases, only a minority of patients are fast-tracked for investigation by a specialist.

Although NHS targets stipulate 95% of patients with suspected cancer referred by their GP must be seen by a specialist within two weeks, data from NHS England says many are not seen on this basis and are eventually diagnosed another way.

In some practices, only around one in 10 patients eventually diagnosed with the disease saw a specialist within two weeks.

Mike Bewick, deputy medical director at NHS England, said the level of variation between practices is too wide, adding: "When people go to their GP with red flag symptoms such as coughing up blood or changes in their bowel you would expect those patients to be picked up."

"But just imagine the scenario when you have an elderly patient with many symptoms and the one they are most worried about is not the red flag.

"It's often due to complexity rather than mistake."

While some GP practices show 100% of patients with cancer making it through the fast-track system, others fall far behind.

In about half of the practices in the sample, fewer than 50% of cancer patients were seen through the two-week system.

Not all patients with cancer visit their GP with symptoms.

Some are diagnosed in A&E, while others have cancer detected during routine tests, or are referred straight to A&E by their GPs because symptoms are so bad.

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said: "Every single patient in the NHS has a right to the very best care – and to see a GP who can spot cancer symptoms early enough to make a difference.

"That's why we've introduced a rigorous new inspection regime for GP surgeries to tackle this unacceptable variation across the country.

"The new chief inspector will speak up for patients without fear or favour, rating each surgery so we can celebrate the best practices and take tough action where standards aren't up to scratch.

"GP surgeries are the bedrock of our NHS, providing vital long-term care for some of our most vulnerable and elderly citizens. I am determined that patients who rely on them get the excellent service they deserve every time."

Stuart Barber, head of communications and campaigns at Beating Bowel Cancer, said: "GPs have the tools. There are clear symptoms, there is a clear screening programme and if a patient visits their doctor with what are symptoms of bowel cancer they should have the confidence they are going to be referred quickly.

"It's intolerable that patients are having to wait. We know of cases where patients have gone multiple times backwards and forwards to their GP with what they think are bowel cancer symptoms. The symptoms get worse and worse and worse and it does turn out to be cancer.

"We know of patients who have seen their GP two or three times over a period of a year, year and a half.

"Some patients are being told it's IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or another condition."

A report last year by the Welsh government found the NHS is failing to meet the target stating that at least 95%of patients should start cancer treatment within 62 days of being referred by their GPs.

It found that the 95% figure had not been met at an all-Wales level since 2008.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/07/cancer-referrals-not-quick-enough-report

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another NHS thread eh? Have you suddenly developed an interest in nationalised healthcare?

[Pooky 3,840]

Another NHS thread eh? Have you suddenly developed an interest in nationalised healthcare?

It's healthcare envy.

A close relative was diagnosed with cancer. I can't fault the treatment and care they received under the NHS, as the illness ran its course. From chemotherapy, through palliative care, to their final hospice care, the medical staff involved were thoroughly professional, helpful and, above all, honest.

There were no worries about insurance companies determining coverage, co-pays, or treatment options. Every decision was made on either medical grounds, in consultation with the patient.

We don't have that level of certainty here in the USA, despite spending almost double what the UK spends on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP. That being the case, things are seriously amiss here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What a lot of people seem to forget when they're posting bait stories criticising the NHS is that Britons can and do buy private health insurance. We may not have the level of uptake of that that you get in Germany but it's an option and a lot of companies provide it as a benefit. Simple fact is, the NHS is enough for most people.

Are stories like this one acceptable? No, but as voters we have a vested interest in ironing out the links through our elected representatives.

Unlike the USA, here we don't have to worry about being 'between coverage' or slapped with a pre existing condition clause or getting cartoonishly large medical bills landing on the mat. It's a crazy system.

[Peikko 1,575]

Moreover what this article proves is that the NHS can be and is scrutinized for deficiencies in its systems and these deficiencies are addressed. Has anyone done a similar study for doctors in the US? No, no one knows that is going on here. I am sure the levels of misdiagnosis are not somehow magically better in a system where no one even checks the data so all in all, this proves once again that the NHS system works and is a good system. Sure, where it can be improved of course it should be, but at least with the NHS it's possible to get the necessary data to do so and guess what? People are constantly ensuring the system does what it's supposed to, provide good care for ALL UK citizens. How absolutely terrible!

[Pooky 3,840]

Moreover what this article proves is that the NHS can be and is scrutinized for deficiencies in its systems and these deficiencies are addressed. Has anyone done a similar study for doctors in the US? No, no one knows that is going on here. I am sure the levels of misdiagnosis are not somehow magically better in a system where no one even checks the data so all in all, this proves once again that the NHS system works and is a good system. Sure, where it can be improved of course it should be, but at least with the NHS it's possible to get the necessary data to do so and guess what? People are constantly ensuring the system does what it's supposed to, provide good care for ALL UK citizens. How absolutely terrible!

Just imagine what it could do, if it had a funding increase of 70%

Because, in comparative terms, that's the amount of money that goes into the healthcare system here in the USA. Some people love to draw attention to the deficiencies reported in the NHS, but gloss over the vast difference in the level of funding. When seen in terms of this disparity, it's remarkable how much the NHS gets done, and done right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again it's just too many vested interests putting profit before what's best for Americans.