| 1. |
- Lawler, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights, update and implementation 2016
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Esmo Open. - : Elsevier BV. - 2059-7029. ; 1:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative: 1. The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care. 2. The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation. 3. The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% longterm survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life. Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments. Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Holtedahl, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Abdominal symptoms in general practice: Frequency, cancer suspicions raised, and actions taken by GPs in six European countries. Cohort study with prospective registration of cancer
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Heliyon. - : Elsevier BV. - 2405-8440. ; 3:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Abdominal symptoms are diagnostically challenging to general practitioners (GPs): although common, they may indicate cancer. In a prospective cohort of patients, we examined abdominal symptom frequency, initial diagnostic suspicion, and actions of GPs in response to abdominal symptoms. Methods Over a 10-day period, 493 GPs in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Scotland, recorded consecutive consultations: sex, date of birth and any specified abdominal symptoms. For patients with abdominal symptoms, additional data on non-specific symptoms, GPs’ diagnostic suspicion, and features of the consultation were noted. Data on all cancer diagnoses among all included patients were requested from the GPs eight months later. Findings Consultations with 61802 patients were recorded. Abdominal symptoms were recorded in 6264 (10.1%) patients. A subsequent malignancy was reported in 511 patients (0.8%): 441 (86.3%) had a new cancer, 70 (13.7%) a recurrent cancer. Abdominal symptoms were noted in 129 (25.2%) of cancer patients (P < 0.001), rising to 34.5% for the 89 patients with cancer located in the abdominal region. PPV for any cancer given any abdominal symptom was 2.1%. In symptomatic patients diagnosed with cancer, GPs noted a suspicion of cancer for 85 (65.9%) versus 1895 (30.9%) when there was no subsequent cancer (P < 0.001). No suspicion was noted in 32 (24.8%) cancer patients. The GP's intuitive cancer suspicion was independently associated with a subsequent new cancer diagnosis (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15–3.89). Laboratory tests were ordered for 45.4% of symptomatic patients, imaging for 10.4%, referral or hospitalization for 20.0%: all were more frequent in subsequent cancer patients (P < 0.001). Interpretation Abdominal symptoms pointed to abdominal cancers rather than to other cancers. However, the finding of abdominal symptoms in only one third of patients with an abdominal cancer, and the lack of cancer suspicion in a quarter of symptomatic cancer patients, provide challenges for GPs’ diagnostic thinking and referral practices. © 2017 The Authors
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Eide, T. B., et al.
(författare)
-
Differences in medical services in Nordic general practice: a comparative survey from the QUALICOPC study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0281-3432 .- 1502-7724. ; 35:2, s. 153-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: We aim to describe medical services provided by Nordic general practitioners (GPs), and to explore possible differences between the countries. Design and setting: We did a comparative analysis of selected data from the Nordic part of the study Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC). Subjects: A total of 875 Nordic GPs (198 Norwegian, 80 Icelandic, 97 Swedish, 212 Danish and 288 Finnish) answered identical questionnaires regarding their practices. Main outcome measures: The GPs indicated which equipment they used in practice, which procedures that were carried out, and to what extent they were involved in treatment/follow-up of a selection of diagnoses. Results: The Danish GPs performed minor surgical procedures significantly less frequent than GPs in all other countries, although they inserted IUDs significantly more often than GPs in Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Finnish GPs performed a majority of the medical procedures more frequently than GPs in the other countries. The GPs in Iceland reported involvement in a more narrow selection of conditions than the GPs in the other countries. The Finnish GPs had more advanced technical equipment than GPs in all other Nordic countries. Conclusions: GPs in all Nordic countries are well equipped and offer a wide range of medical services, yet with a substantial variation between countries. There was no clear pattern of GPs in one country doing consistently more procedures, having consistently more equipment and treating a larger diversity of medical conditions than GPs in the other countries. However, structural factors seemed to affect the services offered.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Menon, U, et al.
(författare)
-
Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 9:11, s. e025895-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer.DesignNewly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity.ParticipantsConsecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS.Primary and secondary outcome measuresInterval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary).ResultsWith the exception of Denmark (−49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012–2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (−11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (−20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (−13), Manitoba (−11), England (−9) and Northern Ireland (−4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%.ConclusionThere are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.
|
|
| 9. |
- Møller, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
High lung cancer surgical procedure volume is associated with shorter length of stay and lower risks of re-admission and death : National cohort analysis in England.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 64, s. 32-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is debated whether treating cancer patients in high-volume surgical centres can lead to improvement in outcomes, such as shorter length of hospital stay, decreased frequency and severity of post-operative complications, decreased re-admission, and decreased mortality. The dataset for this analysis was based on cancer registration and hospital discharge data and comprised information on 15,738 non-small-cell lung cancer patients resident and diagnosed in England in 2006-2010 and treated by surgical resection. The number of lung cancer resections was computed for each hospital in each calendar year, and patients were assigned to a hospital volume quintile on the basis of the volume of their hospital. Hospitals with large lung cancer surgical resection volumes were less restrictive in their selection of patients for surgical management and provided a higher resection rate to their geographical population. Higher volume hospitals had shorter length of stay and the odds of re-admission were 15% lower in the highest hospital volume quintile compared with the lowest quintile. Mortality risks were 1% after 30 d and 3% after 90 d. Patients from hospitals in the highest volume quintile had about half the odds of death within 30 d than patients from the lowest quintile. Variations in outcomes were generally small, but in the same direction, with consistently better outcomes in the larger hospitals. This gives support to the ongoing trend towards centralisation of clinical services, but service re-organisation needs to take account of not only the size of hospitals but also referral routes and patient access.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
