Literature DB >> 17032322

A single common urgent pathway for all colorectal referrals reduces time to diagnosis and treatment.

M A Scott1, A Knight, K Brown, J R Novell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the urgent referral of patients with suspected colorectal cancer were introduced in 2000. They aimed to facilitate the prompt diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptoms suggestive of malignant disease. Recent assessment of these guidelines has suggested that although they identify 9-14% of patients with colorectal cancer, they may be used inappropriately and may lead to delays in treatment for those patients with cancers whose symptoms do not fit the guidelines. We aimed to assess the effect of introducing a single pathway for all referrals irrespective of indicated urgency.
METHOD: All referral letters to a single consultant colorectal surgeon over a 6-month period were coded 'urgent' irrespective of the indicated urgency on the original referral letter. Data was collected prospectively on 47 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer identified over the trial period. Patient demographics, the mode of presentation, urgency of referral and waiting times were documented.
RESULTS: Following the introduction of the common urgent referral pathway, no patient waited longer than 62 days from referral to treatment or 31 days from the decision to treat to first treatment, thus meeting government targets introduced in 2005.
CONCLUSION: The introduction of the urgent referral guidelines has accelerated the referral pathway for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer, although this is at the expense of the majority of patients who present via conventional pathways. The introduction of a common urgent pathway allows prompt diagnosis and treatment and is of particular benefit for the majority of patients not referred via the 2-week standard. Until a more accurate method of identifying the highest risk patients is implemented, we suggest that all patients are seen on an urgent basis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17032322     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01034.x

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


  5 in total

1.  Wait times from presentation to treatment for colorectal cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  H Singh; C De Coster; E Shu; K Fradette; S Latosinsky; M Pitz; M Cheang; D Turner
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.522

2.  Is the "red flag" referral pathway effective in diagnosing colorectal carcinoma?

Authors:  Alison McCoubrey; Conor Warren; Ian McAllister; Robert Gilliland
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  2012-09

3.  Endoscopic obstruction is associated with higher risk of acute events requiring emergency operation in colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Virote Chalieopanyarwong; Teeranut Boonpipattanapong; Paradee Prechawittayakul; Surasak Sangkhathat
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-09-08       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  A prospective study of peri-diagnostic and surgical wait times for patients with presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer.

Authors:  E Grunfeld; J M Watters; R Urquhart; K O'Rourke; J Jaffey; D E Maziak; C Morash; D Patel; W K Evans
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  David Goldsbury; Mark Harris; Shane Pascoe; Michael Barton; Ian Olver; Allan Spigelman; Justin Beilby; Craig Veitch; David Weller; Dianne L O'Connell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.