I A Olivotto1, L Kan, S King. 1. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. iolivott@bccancer.bc.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with abnormal screening mammograms require diagnostic assessment and experience anxiety until a diagnosis is established. This report evaluated the timeliness of diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC). METHODS: Information on diagnostic interventions following an abnormal screen (N = 10,314) provided through 11 regional SMPBC services between January 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994 were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: The median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 3.4 weeks with regional variation of 2.0 to 4.7 weeks; 10% waited 8.7 weeks or longer. For the 19% of women proceeding to open biopsy, the median diagnostic interval was 7.1 weeks with regional variation of 4.6 to 9.3 weeks; 10% waited 13.1 weeks or longer. INTERPRETATION: After an abnormal screening mammogram, women waited many weeks for a definitive diagnosis, especially those proceeding to open biopsy. Opportunities for process improvement were identified.
BACKGROUND:Women with abnormal screening mammograms require diagnostic assessment and experience anxiety until a diagnosis is established. This report evaluated the timeliness of diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC). METHODS: Information on diagnostic interventions following an abnormal screen (N = 10,314) provided through 11 regional SMPBC services between January 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994 were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: The median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 3.4 weeks with regional variation of 2.0 to 4.7 weeks; 10% waited 8.7 weeks or longer. For the 19% of women proceeding to open biopsy, the median diagnostic interval was 7.1 weeks with regional variation of 4.6 to 9.3 weeks; 10% waited 13.1 weeks or longer. INTERPRETATION: After an abnormal screening mammogram, women waited many weeks for a definitive diagnosis, especially those proceeding to open biopsy. Opportunities for process improvement were identified.
Authors: L Nyström; L E Rutqvist; S Wall; A Lindgren; M Lindqvist; S Rydén; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-04-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J S Caines; K Chantziantoniou; B A Wright; G P Konok; S E Iles; A Bodurtha; I Zayid; C Daniels Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: I A Olivotto; M J Borugian; L Kan; S R Harris; E J Rousseau; S E Thorne; J A Vestrup; C J Wright; A J Coldman; T G Hislop Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2001 Sep-Oct
Authors: Amardeep Thind; Cathy Thorpe; Andrea Burt; Moira Stewart; Graham Reid; Stewart Harris; Judith Belle Brown Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2007-02
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Derek Muradali; Kristina M Blackmore; Courtney R Smith; Lucia Mirea; Vicky Majpruz; Frances P O'Malley; May Lynn Quan; Claire Mb Holloway Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Amalia Plotogea; Anna M Chiarelli; Lucia Mirea; Maegan V Prummel; Nelson Chong; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Claire Mb Holloway Journal: Springerplus Date: 2014-03-06