Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33865373›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Setting up a rapid diagnostic clinic for patients with vague symptoms of cancer: a mixed method process evaluation study.

Christos Vasilakis, Paul Forte

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05876676 (Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05876676 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustRan2023 to 2032Enrolled1,000ConditionsCancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Rapid Diagnostic Centres and early cancer diagnosis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christos VasilakisCentre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement (CHI2), School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK. c.vasilakis@bath.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0391-0910
Paul ForteCentre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement (CHI2), School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
University of Bath · GB

Funding

Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board SQT1042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study sought to evaluate the impact of a Rapid Diagnostic Clinic (RDC) service designed to improve general practitioner (GP) referral processes for patients who do not meet existing referral criteria yet present with vague - but potentially concerning - symptoms of cancer. We sought to investigate how well the RDC has performed in the views of local GPs and patients, and through analysis of its activity and performance in the first two years of operation.

methodsThe study setting was a single, hospital-based RDC clinic in a University Health Board in South Wales. We used a mixed-method process evaluation study, including routinely collected activity and diagnosis data. All GPs were invited to participate in an online survey (34/165 responded), and a smaller group (n = 8) were interviewed individually. Two focus groups with patients and their carers (n = 7) provided in-depth personal accounts of their experiences.

resultsThe focus groups revealed high rates of patient satisfaction with the RDC. GPs were also overwhelmingly positive about the value of the RDC to their practice. There were 574 clinic attendances between July 2017 and March 2019; the mean age of attendees was 68, 57% were female, and approximately 30% had three or more vague symptoms. Of those attending, we estimated between 42 to 71 (7.3 and 12.3%) received preliminary cancer diagnoses. Median time from GP referral to RDC appointment was 12 days; from GP referral to cancer diagnosis was 34 days. Overall, 73% of RDC patients received either a new diagnosis (suspected cancer 23.2%, non-cancer 35.9%) or an onward referral to secondary care for further investigation with no new diagnosis (13.9%), and 27% were referred to primary care with no new diagnosis.

conclusionsThe RDC appears to enable a good patient experience in cancer diagnosis. Patients are seen in timely fashion, and the service is highly regarded by them, their carers, and referring GPs. Although too early to draw conclusions about long-term patient outcomes, there are strong indications to suggest that this model of service provision can set higher standards for a strongly patient-centred service.

Indexed as

General PractitionersNeoplasmsFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationResearch DesignCancer diagnosisEarly detection of cancerGeneral practiceNon-specific symptomsRapid Diagnostic Clinic

Identifiers

PMID33865373
PMCPMC8052708
OpenAlexW3155233979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.