Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T16:17:52.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Views of general practitioners and head and neck surgeons on the referral system for suspected cancer: a survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

G S Bethell  and
P Leftwick
G S Bethell*
Affiliation:
Community Studies Unit, School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK
P Leftwick
Affiliation:
Community Studies Unit, School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr George Bethell, Community Studies Unit, School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Cedar House, Ashton Street, Liverpool L69 3GE, UK E-mail: g.s.bethell@liv.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The two-week wait referral system for suspected cancer was introduced in the National Health Service in 2000. This study aimed to identify areas for improvement to the two-week wait system by seeking the opinions of doctors working in primary and secondary care.

Method:

A questionnaire was distributed to general practitioners and head and neck surgeons within North West England with ethical consent.

Results:

Twenty-seven general practitioners and 15 head and neck surgeons responded. Of the general practitioners, 59.3 per cent declared that they never attend training on referrals in this specialty. Overall, 59.3 per cent of general practitioners and 86.7 per cent of head and neck surgeons felt that the two-week wait system could be improved.

Conclusion:

The main areas for further work are development of pre-referral communication between primary and secondary care along with development of practical educational measures for general practitioners.

Keywords

NeoplasmInterprofessional RelationsInterdisciplinary CommunicationTeachingPrimary CareSecondary CareGatekeeping

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 9 , September 2015 , pp. 893 - 897
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Presented at the Society for Academic Primary Care North meeting, 21 November 2013, Kendal, UK.

References

1Jones, R, Rubin, G, Hungin, P. Is the two week rule for cancer referrals working? BMJ 2001;322:1555–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Ndukwe, N, Borowski, DW, Lee, A, Orr, A, Dexter-Smith, S, Agarwal, AK. The two-week rule for suspected colorectal cancer: patient experience and psychological impact. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2012;25:75–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3National Cancer Intelligence Network. Urgent GP referral rates for suspected cancer. In: www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/gp_referral_rates [5 March 2014]Google Scholar
4McKie, C, Ahmad, UA, Fellows, S, Meikle, D, Stafford, FW, Thomson, PJ et al. The 2-week rule for suspected head and neck cancer in the United Kingdom: referral patterns, diagnostic efficacy of the guidelines and compliance. Oral Oncol 2008;44:851–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Potter, S, Govindarajulu, S, Shere, M, Braddon, F, Curran, G, Greenwood, R et al. Referral patterns, cancer diagnoses, and waiting times after introduction of two week wait rule for breast cancer: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6McCain, S, Newell, J, Badger, S, Kennedy, R, Kirk, S. Referral patterns, clinical examination and the two-week-rule for breast cancer: a cohort study. Ulster Med J 2011;80:68–71Google ScholarPubMed
7Smith, RA, Oshin, O, McCallum, J, Randles, J, Kennedy, S, Delamere, S et al. Outcomes in 2748 patients referred to a colorectal two-week rule clinic. Colorectal Dis 2007;9:340–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Cox, NH. Evaluation of the U.K. 2-week referral rule for skin cancer. Br J Dermatol 2004;150:291–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Duvvi, SK, Thomas, L, Vijayanand, S, Reddy, KT. Two-week rule for suspected head and neck cancer. A study of compliance and effectiveness. J Eval Clin Pract 2006;12:591–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Lyons, M, Philpott, J, Hore, I, Watters, G. Audit of referrals for head and neck cancer - the effect of the 2-week, fast track referral system. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29:143–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Blick, C, Bailey, D, Haldar, N, Bdesha, A, Kelleher, J, Muneer, A. The impact of the two-week wait rule on the diagnosis and management of bladder cancer in a single UK institution. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010;92:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Mansell, G, Shapley, M, Jordan, JL, Jordan, K. Interventions to reduce primary care delay in cancer referral: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61:821–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Shariff, Z, Roshan, A, Williams, AM, Platt, AJ. 2-Week wait referrals in suspected skin cancer: does an instructional module for general practitioners improve diagnostic accuracy? Surgeon 2010;8:247–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed