INTRODUCTION: Five community-specific interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis after an abnormal breast screen have been evaluated. METHODS: Subjects with abnormal screening mammograms in 1998 were assessed through five community pilot projects (N = 1137) and a control random sample assessed elsewhere in BC (N = 1053). The number, types, dates and physician costs of breast-related interventions after an abnormal screen were compared between pilots and control. RESULTS: The median time to diagnosis for women without a biopsy was reduced from 23 days to 7 days (p = 0.001) in the pilot with facilitated referral to diagnosis. The median time to diagnosis for women with a biopsy was reduced from 57 days to 22-43 days in the pilots. Median physician costs per subject were lower (p = 0.02) in pilots that more frequently used core biopsy to obtain a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Process changes can improve the time to diagnosis after an abnormal breast screen, with similar or lower physician costs per subject. Facilitating the referral process had the greatest impact.
INTRODUCTION: Five community-specific interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis after an abnormal breast screen have been evaluated. METHODS: Subjects with abnormal screening mammograms in 1998 were assessed through five community pilot projects (N = 1137) and a control random sample assessed elsewhere in BC (N = 1053). The number, types, dates and physician costs of breast-related interventions after an abnormal screen were compared between pilots and control. RESULTS: The median time to diagnosis for women without a biopsy was reduced from 23 days to 7 days (p = 0.001) in the pilot with facilitated referral to diagnosis. The median time to diagnosis for women with a biopsy was reduced from 57 days to 22-43 days in the pilots. Median physician costs per subject were lower (p = 0.02) in pilots that more frequently used core biopsy to obtain a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Process changes can improve the time to diagnosis after an abnormal breast screen, with similar or lower physician costs per subject. Facilitating the referral process had the greatest impact.
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: I A Olivotto; C Bancej; V Goel; J Snider; R G McAuley; B Irvine; L Kan; D Mirsky; M J Sabine; R McGilly; J S Caines Journal: CMAJ Date: 2001-08-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: May Lynn Quan; Rene S Shumak; Vicky Majpruz; Claire M D Holloway; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Marilyn J Borugian; Lisa Kan; Christina C Y Chu; Kathy Ceballos; Karen A Gelmon; Paula B Gordon; Barbara Poole; Scott Tyldesley; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2008 Jul-Aug
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