ArticleJRSM short reports2012
Managing patient pathways to achieve lung cancer waiting time targets: mixed methods study.
Article in JRSM short reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managing the cancer backlog: a national population-based study of patient mobility, waiting times and 'spare capacity' for cancer surgery.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2023Article
- Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEngland's National Health Service (NHS) introduced a 62-day target, from referral to treatment, to make lung cancer patient pathways more efficient. This study aims to understand pathway delays that lead to breaches of the target when patients need care in both secondary and tertiary setting, so more than one institution is involved.
designMixed methods cross case analysis.
settingTwo tertiary referral hospitals in London.
participantsDatabase records of 53 patients were analysed. Nineteen sets of patient notes were used for pathway mapping. Seventeen doctors, four nurses, eight managers and administrators were interviewed.
main outcome measuresQualitative methods include pathway mapping and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis of patient pathway times from cancer services records.
resultsThe majority of the patient pathway (68.4%) is spent in secondary centres. There is more variability in the processes of secondary centres but tertiary centres do not have perfect processes either. Three themes emerged from discussions: information flows, pathway performance and the role of the multidisciplinary approach.
conclusionsThe actions of secondary centres have a greater influence on whether a patient breaches the 62-day target, compared with tertiary centres. Nevertheless variability exists in both, with potential for improvement.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.