Literature DB >> 16108885

Evolution of the two-week rule pathway--direct access colonoscopy vs outpatient appointments: one year's experience and patient satisfaction survey.

K Maruthachalam1, E Stoker, S Chaudhri, S Noblett, A F Horgan.   

Abstract

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Direct access colonoscopy (DAC) vs outpatient appointments for two-week rule colorectal cancer referrals and to evaluate the satisfaction of patients referred through these routes. Patients and methods Data were collected prospectively from January 2003 to December 2003 on patients who were referred for DAC or outpatient appointments at the discretion of the referring General practitioner via the Lower GI two-week rule pathway. A postal questionnaire was used to survey patient satisfaction. Results Six hundred and thirty-nine patients were referred via the two-week rule pathway; 188 patients underwent colonoscopy at their initial hospital visit and 19 (10.1%) colorectal cancers were diagnosed; 442 patients had an outpatient appointment and 32 (7.2%) colorectal cancers were identified. There were 7 (1%) inappropriate referrals and 2 patients refused investigations. All outcome parameters measured were reduced for patients referred directly for colonoscopy including time to definitive investigations (Median 9 vs 52 days P < 0.0001), time to histological diagnosis (Median 14 vs 42 days P < 0.0001) and time to treatment (Median 55 vs 75 days P < 0.0483). One hundred and seventy patients were surveyed by the postal questionnaire of whom 127 (75%) responded. Ninety-eight percent of patients were satisfied with the service provided. Four (6.6%) of 60 patients who had undergone direct access colonoscopy expressed a desire to be seen at the outpatient department initially. Conclusions Direct access colonoscopy results in significantly reduced times to histological diagnosis and definitive treatment in patients with colorectal cancer. Patients can be directly admitted for investigations bypassing the outpatient clinic without affecting patient satisfaction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16108885     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00868.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  5 in total

Review 1.  Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

Review 2.  Conflicting Guidelines: A Systematic Review on the Proper Interval for Colorectal Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Charlotte J L Molenaar; Loes Janssen; Donald L van der Peet; Desmond C Winter; Rudi M H Roumen; Gerrit D Slooter
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  A differentiated approach to referrals from general practice to support early cancer diagnosis - the Danish three-legged strategy.

Authors:  P Vedsted; F Olesen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Cancer diagnostic assessment programs: standards for the organization of care in Ontario.

Authors:  M Brouwers; T K Oliver; J Crawford; P Ellison; W K Evans; A Gagliardi; J Lacourciere; D Lo; V Mai; S McNair; T Minuk; L Rabeneck; C Rand; J Ross; J Smylie; J Srigley; H Stern; M Trudeau
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 5.  The effects of the Two-Week Rule on NHS colorectal cancer diagnostic services: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Kymberley Thorne; Hayley A Hutchings; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-04-03       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.