Referral pathways in colorectal cancer: an audit of surgeons' records

Spigelman, Allan D., Pascoe, Shane W., Harris, Mark F., Beilby, Justin J., Crossland, Lisa J., Gett, Rohan M., Barton, Michael B. and Jayasinghe, Uphail W. (2013) Referral pathways in colorectal cancer: an audit of surgeons' records. Australian Health Review, 37 4: 449-452. doi:10.1071/AH13038


Author Spigelman, Allan D.
Pascoe, Shane W.
Harris, Mark F.
Beilby, Justin J.
Crossland, Lisa J.
Gett, Rohan M.
Barton, Michael B.
Jayasinghe, Uphail W.
Title Referral pathways in colorectal cancer: an audit of surgeons' records
Journal name Australian Health Review   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0156-5788
1449-8944
Publication date 2013
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1071/AH13038
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 37
Issue 4
Start page 449
End page 452
Total pages 4
Place of publication Clayton, VIC Australia
Publisher CSIRO Publishing
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Purpose. To explore the referral pathways of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to surgeons.

Method. Australian surgeons from three states completed a questionnaire and their records were audited.

Results. Thirty-three surgeons provided data on 530 patients seen in the preceding 12 months. The median time between colonoscopy and first surgical consult was 10 days, with 19% of patients waiting more than 28 days. After adjustment for clustering, no surgeon factors were associated with the number of days between colonoscopy and surgery. A report back to the general practitioner (GP) was found in 78% of patients’ records. This feedback varied between surgeons but none of the specific surgeon characteristics examined could explain this.

Conclusion. Surgeons usually communicated with GP regardless of whether they were the referral source. However, communication with GP varied considerably among surgeons, with no evidence of a report to the GP in one-fifth of cases.

What is known about the topic? Referral from general practice is the main pathway to specialist services in Australia. There has been little research describing factors that affect referral patterns, particularly following diagnosis of cancer to investigation for surgery.

What does this paper add? A significant minority of GP were not informed of the referral for colonoscopy and did not receive a copy of the report. No surgeon factors were associated with the number of days between colonoscopy and surgery.

What are the implications for practitioners? Although the referral pathway for colorectal cancer often begins in general practice, GP are not always fully informed of the pathways used and other important treatment decisions. Improved use of audit, dissemination of results and improved information exchange generally may all make a significant impact.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: Discipline of General Practice Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 31 Mar 2016, 15:39:28 EST by Lisa Crossland on behalf of Discipline of General Practice