BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patient and systematic factors within primary and secondary care contribute to delay in timely diagnosis of lung cancer. This qualitative study aimed to explore New Zealand service users' experiences of the pathway to lung cancer diagnosis, identify factors contributing to delay and provide advice for service improvement. METHODS: Two samples were recruited. Patients who presented to a hospital emergency department with suspicious symptoms (n = 19) were interviewed individually. Those with confirmed lung cancer (n = 20) took part in a focus group. Similar semi-structured interview schedules were used. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and thematic analyses performed. Evident commonality led to an integrated interpretation. RESULTS: Patient delay was common but most had seen a GP before referral. No ED participant had seen a respiratory specialist prior ED admission, but after that, most had a seamless pathway. This contrasts with long waits for outpatient participants. Two central themes, 'access to health services' and 'processes of care', described factors influencing delay. Subthemes highlighted issues relating to symptom interpretation, health beliefs, provider continuity, relationships and perceived expertise that contributed to patient and GP delay. System complexity, information systems and resourcing issues were identified as barriers at the primary-secondary care interface and within secondary care. CONCLUSION: Reasons for diagnostic delay are complex and multifactorial. Solutions include community initiatives to educate and resource at-risk patients to seek help, supporting and resourcing primary care to increase timely referral and implementing strategies to reduce system complexity for GPs and patients, and the employment of care coordinators.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Patient and systematic factors within primary and secondary care contribute to delay in timely diagnosis of lung cancer. This qualitative study aimed to explore New Zealand service users' experiences of the pathway to lung cancer diagnosis, identify factors contributing to delay and provide advice for service improvement. METHODS: Two samples were recruited. Patients who presented to a hospital emergency department with suspicious symptoms (n = 19) were interviewed individually. Those with confirmed lung cancer (n = 20) took part in a focus group. Similar semi-structured interview schedules were used. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and thematic analyses performed. Evident commonality led to an integrated interpretation. RESULTS:Patient delay was common but most had seen a GP before referral. No ED participant had seen a respiratory specialist prior ED admission, but after that, most had a seamless pathway. This contrasts with long waits for outpatientparticipants. Two central themes, 'access to health services' and 'processes of care', described factors influencing delay. Subthemes highlighted issues relating to symptom interpretation, health beliefs, provider continuity, relationships and perceived expertise that contributed to patient and GP delay. System complexity, information systems and resourcing issues were identified as barriers at the primary-secondary care interface and within secondary care. CONCLUSION: Reasons for diagnostic delay are complex and multifactorial. Solutions include community initiatives to educate and resource at-risk patients to seek help, supporting and resourcing primary care to increase timely referral and implementing strategies to reduce system complexity for GPs and patients, and the employment of care coordinators.
Entities:
Keywords:
Access to care; cancer care/oncology; continuity of care; doctor–patient relationship; primary care.
Authors: Glenys Caswell; Jane Seymour; Vincent Crosby; Asmah Hussain; Cathann Manderson; Sarah Farnan; Sarah Freer; Alison Freemantle; Fran Littlewood; Andrew Wilcock Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Richard Wagland; Lucy Brindle; Sean Ewings; Elizabeth James; Mike Moore; Carol Rivas; Ana Ibanez Esqueda; Jessica Corner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240