Cargando…

How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer

Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment (“GP–LCS interval”), and diagnosis to treat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Malalasekera, Ashanya, Nahm, Sharon, Blinman, Prunella L., Kao, Steven C., Dhillon, Haryana M., Vardy, Janette L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9488868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0045-2018
_version_ 1784792756480114688
author Malalasekera, Ashanya
Nahm, Sharon
Blinman, Prunella L.
Kao, Steven C.
Dhillon, Haryana M.
Vardy, Janette L.
author_facet Malalasekera, Ashanya
Nahm, Sharon
Blinman, Prunella L.
Kao, Steven C.
Dhillon, Haryana M.
Vardy, Janette L.
author_sort Malalasekera, Ashanya
collection PubMed
description Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment (“GP–LCS interval”), and diagnosis to treatment (“treatment interval”). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care. We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP–LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions. Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP–LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay. Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9488868
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94888682022-11-14 How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer Malalasekera, Ashanya Nahm, Sharon Blinman, Prunella L. Kao, Steven C. Dhillon, Haryana M. Vardy, Janette L. Eur Respir Rev Review Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment (“GP–LCS interval”), and diagnosis to treatment (“treatment interval”). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care. We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP–LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions. Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP–LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay. Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care. European Respiratory Society 2018-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9488868/ /pubmed/30158277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0045-2018 Text en Copyright ©ERS 2018. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ERR articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
spellingShingle Review
Malalasekera, Ashanya
Nahm, Sharon
Blinman, Prunella L.
Kao, Steven C.
Dhillon, Haryana M.
Vardy, Janette L.
How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title_full How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title_fullStr How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title_full_unstemmed How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title_short How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
title_sort how long is too long? a scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9488868/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0045-2018
work_keys_str_mv AT malalasekeraashanya howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer
AT nahmsharon howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer
AT blinmanprunellal howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer
AT kaostevenc howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer
AT dhillonharyanam howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer
AT vardyjanettel howlongistoolongascopingreviewofhealthsystemdelaysinlungcancer