INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate the two-week wait referral system for suspected testicular cancer and to compare waiting times from referral to treatment before and after the introduction of the two-week wait process. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 241 case notes for patients referred under the two-week wait system with suspected testicular tumour during a complete 3-year period (2003-2005) and recorded information from the referral letter, findings in the urology clinic, results of ultrasound and final outcomes. We also identified 42 cases of testicular tumour treated during a complete 3-year period (1997-1999) just before the two-week wait system was introduced. The journey from referral to treatment for tumour cases was compared during these two periods. RESULTS: Testicular cancer was only found in 8% of patients referred by the two-week wait system. We judged the referral to be inappropriate in 48% of cases. Of referred cases, 78% required no surgical treatment. There was a significant improvement of 9 days in the average time from general practitioner (GP) referral to urology clinic attendance but all other journey intervals remained the same. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of GPs in examining scrotal swellings and applying the two-week wait guidelines was very poor, resulting in many unnecessary urgent clinic visits. The referral system speeds up the visit to a urology clinic but the overall effect is probably not of clinical significance. We suggest that it would be much more cost-effective for all these patients to have an ultrasound scan within 2 weeks instead of a urology clinic appointment.
INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate the two-week wait referral system for suspected testicular cancer and to compare waiting times from referral to treatment before and after the introduction of the two-week wait process. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 241 case notes for patients referred under the two-week wait system with suspected testicular tumour during a complete 3-year period (2003-2005) and recorded information from the referral letter, findings in the urology clinic, results of ultrasound and final outcomes. We also identified 42 cases of testicular tumour treated during a complete 3-year period (1997-1999) just before the two-week wait system was introduced. The journey from referral to treatment for tumour cases was compared during these two periods. RESULTS:Testicular cancer was only found in 8% of patients referred by the two-week wait system. We judged the referral to be inappropriate in 48% of cases. Of referred cases, 78% required no surgical treatment. There was a significant improvement of 9 days in the average time from general practitioner (GP) referral to urology clinic attendance but all other journey intervals remained the same. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of GPs in examining scrotal swellings and applying the two-week wait guidelines was very poor, resulting in many unnecessary urgent clinic visits. The referral system speeds up the visit to a urology clinic but the overall effect is probably not of clinical significance. We suggest that it would be much more cost-effective for all these patients to have an ultrasound scan within 2 weeks instead of a urology clinic appointment.