Claire Friedemann Smith1, Alice Tompson1, Gea A Holtman1,2, Clare Bankhead1, Fergus Gleeson3, Daniel Lasserson4, Brian D Nicholson1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 4. Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One-stop clinics provide comprehensive diagnostic testing in one outpatient appointment. They could benefit patients with conditions, such as cancer, whose outcomes are improved by early diagnosis, and bring efficiency savings for health systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use and outcomes of one-stop clinics for symptoms where cancer is a possible diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies reporting use and outcomes of one-stop clinics in primary care patients. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing one-stop clinics for adults referred after presenting to primary care with any symptom that could be indicative of cancer. Study selection was carried out independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were identified, most were conducted in the UK and observational in design. Few included a comparison arm. A pooled comparison of the cancer conversion rate of one-stop and multi-stop clinics was only possible for breast symptoms, and we found no significant difference. One-stop clinics were associated with significant reductions in the interval from referral to testing (15 versus 75 days) and more patients diagnosed on the same day (79% versus 25%) compared to multi-stop pathways. The majority of patients and GPs found one-stop clinics to be acceptable. CONCLUSION: This review found one-stop clinics were associated with reduced time from referral to testing, increased same day diagnoses, and were acceptable to patients and GPs. Our conclusions are limited by high levels of heterogeneity, scarcity of comparator groups, and the overwhelmingly observational nature of included studies.
BACKGROUND: One-stop clinics provide comprehensive diagnostic testing in one outpatient appointment. They could benefit patients with conditions, such as cancer, whose outcomes are improved by early diagnosis, and bring efficiency savings for health systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use and outcomes of one-stop clinics for symptoms where cancer is a possible diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies reporting use and outcomes of one-stop clinics in primary care patients. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing one-stop clinics for adults referred after presenting to primary care with any symptom that could be indicative of cancer. Study selection was carried out independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were identified, most were conducted in the UK and observational in design. Few included a comparison arm. A pooled comparison of the cancer conversion rate of one-stop and multi-stop clinics was only possible for breast symptoms, and we found no significant difference. One-stop clinics were associated with significant reductions in the interval from referral to testing (15 versus 75 days) and more patients diagnosed on the same day (79% versus 25%) compared to multi-stop pathways. The majority of patients and GPs found one-stop clinics to be acceptable. CONCLUSION: This review found one-stop clinics were associated with reduced time from referral to testing, increased same day diagnoses, and were acceptable to patients and GPs. Our conclusions are limited by high levels of heterogeneity, scarcity of comparator groups, and the overwhelmingly observational nature of included studies.
Authors: R K Gregory; D Cunningham; T A Fisher; P Rhys-Evans; G W Middleton; L Bishop; A Wotherspoon; P A Trott; A G Nash Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Pepijn Brocken; Judith B Prins; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Henricus F M van der Heijden Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Pamela Smith; Gwenllian Moody; Eleanor Clarke; Julia Hiscock; Rebecca Cannings-John; Julia Townson; Adrian Edwards; Harriet D Quinn-Scoggins; Bernadette Sewell; Daniel Jones; Christina Lloydwin; Sara Thomas; Dawn Casey; Catherine Lloyd-Bennett; Helen Stanton; Fiona V Lugg-Widger; Dyfed Huws; Angela Watkins; Gareth Newton; Ann Maria Thomas; Grace M McCutchan; Kate Brain Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Anders Damgaard Møller Schlünsen; David Høyrup Christiansen; Ulrich Fredberg; Peter Vedsted Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 2.655