The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

David Goldsbury; Mark Harris; Shane Pascoe; Michael Barton; Ian Olver; Allan Spigelman; Justin Beilby; Craig Veitch; David Weller; Dianne L. O'Connell

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325

The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

David Goldsbury, Mark Harris, Shane Pascoe, Michael Barton, Ian Olver, Allan Spigelman, Justin Beilby, Craig Veitch, David Weller, Dianne L. O'Connell

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To describe general practitioner (GP) involvement in the treatment referral pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Design: A retrospective cohort analysis of linked data.

Setting: A population-based sample of CRC patients diagnosed from August 2004 to December 2007 in New South Wales, Australia, using the 45 and Up Study, cancer registry diagnosis records, inpatient hospital records and Medicare claims records.

Participants: 407 CRC patients who had a colonoscopy followed by surgery.

Primary outcome measures: Patterns of GP consultations between colonoscopy and surgery (ie, between diagnosis and treatment). We investigated whether consulting a GP presurgery was associated with time to surgery, postsurgical GP consultations or rectal cancer cases having surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities.

Results: Of the 407 patients, 43% (n=175) had at least one GP consultation between colonoscopy and surgery. The median time from colonoscopy to surgery was 27 days for those with an intervening GP consultation and 15 days for those without the consultation. 55% (n=223) had a GP consultation up to 30 days postsurgery; it was more common in cases of patients who consulted a GP presurgery than for those who did not (65% and 47%, respectively, adjusted OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89, p=0.001). Of the 142 rectal cancer cases, 23% (n=33) had their surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities, with no difference between those who did and did not consult a GP presurgery (21% and 25% respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.63, p=0.76).

Conclusions: Consulting a GP between colonoscopy and surgery was associated with a longer interval between diagnosis and treatment, and with further GP consultations postsurgery, but for rectal cancer cases it was not associated with treatment in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. GPs might require a more defined and systematic approach to CRC management.

Original language	English
Article number	e002325
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	3
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325
Publication status	Published - 16 May 2013
Externally published	Yes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325

Cite this

@article{d6a092d124384cd8961d789a7ae0241e,

title = "The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study",

abstract = "Objectives: To describe general practitioner (GP) involvement in the treatment referral pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Design: A retrospective cohort analysis of linked data. Setting: A population-based sample of CRC patients diagnosed from August 2004 to December 2007 in New South Wales, Australia, using the 45 and Up Study, cancer registry diagnosis records, inpatient hospital records and Medicare claims records. Participants: 407 CRC patients who had a colonoscopy followed by surgery.Primary outcome measures: Patterns of GP consultations between colonoscopy and surgery (ie, between diagnosis and treatment). We investigated whether consulting a GP presurgery was associated with time to surgery, postsurgical GP consultations or rectal cancer cases having surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. Results: Of the 407 patients, 43% (n=175) had at least one GP consultation between colonoscopy and surgery. The median time from colonoscopy to surgery was 27 days for those with an intervening GP consultation and 15 days for those without the consultation. 55% (n=223) had a GP consultation up to 30 days postsurgery; it was more common in cases of patients who consulted a GP presurgery than for those who did not (65% and 47%, respectively, adjusted OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89, p=0.001). Of the 142 rectal cancer cases, 23% (n=33) had their surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities, with no difference between those who did and did not consult a GP presurgery (21% and 25% respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.63, p=0.76). Conclusions: Consulting a GP between colonoscopy and surgery was associated with a longer interval between diagnosis and treatment, and with further GP consultations postsurgery, but for rectal cancer cases it was not associated with treatment in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. GPs might require a more defined and systematic approach to CRC management.",

author = "David Goldsbury and Mark Harris and Shane Pascoe and Michael Barton and Ian Olver and Allan Spigelman and Justin Beilby and Craig Veitch and David Weller and O'Connell, {Dianne L.}",

year = "2013",

month = may,

day = "16",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer

T2 - A retrospective cohort study

AU - Goldsbury, David

AU - Harris, Mark

AU - Pascoe, Shane

AU - Barton, Michael

AU - Olver, Ian

AU - Spigelman, Allan

AU - Beilby, Justin

AU - Veitch, Craig

AU - Weller, David

AU - O'Connell, Dianne L.

PY - 2013/5/16

Y1 - 2013/5/16

N2 - Objectives: To describe general practitioner (GP) involvement in the treatment referral pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Design: A retrospective cohort analysis of linked data. Setting: A population-based sample of CRC patients diagnosed from August 2004 to December 2007 in New South Wales, Australia, using the 45 and Up Study, cancer registry diagnosis records, inpatient hospital records and Medicare claims records. Participants: 407 CRC patients who had a colonoscopy followed by surgery.Primary outcome measures: Patterns of GP consultations between colonoscopy and surgery (ie, between diagnosis and treatment). We investigated whether consulting a GP presurgery was associated with time to surgery, postsurgical GP consultations or rectal cancer cases having surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. Results: Of the 407 patients, 43% (n=175) had at least one GP consultation between colonoscopy and surgery. The median time from colonoscopy to surgery was 27 days for those with an intervening GP consultation and 15 days for those without the consultation. 55% (n=223) had a GP consultation up to 30 days postsurgery; it was more common in cases of patients who consulted a GP presurgery than for those who did not (65% and 47%, respectively, adjusted OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89, p=0.001). Of the 142 rectal cancer cases, 23% (n=33) had their surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities, with no difference between those who did and did not consult a GP presurgery (21% and 25% respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.63, p=0.76). Conclusions: Consulting a GP between colonoscopy and surgery was associated with a longer interval between diagnosis and treatment, and with further GP consultations postsurgery, but for rectal cancer cases it was not associated with treatment in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. GPs might require a more defined and systematic approach to CRC management.

AB - Objectives: To describe general practitioner (GP) involvement in the treatment referral pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Design: A retrospective cohort analysis of linked data. Setting: A population-based sample of CRC patients diagnosed from August 2004 to December 2007 in New South Wales, Australia, using the 45 and Up Study, cancer registry diagnosis records, inpatient hospital records and Medicare claims records. Participants: 407 CRC patients who had a colonoscopy followed by surgery.Primary outcome measures: Patterns of GP consultations between colonoscopy and surgery (ie, between diagnosis and treatment). We investigated whether consulting a GP presurgery was associated with time to surgery, postsurgical GP consultations or rectal cancer cases having surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. Results: Of the 407 patients, 43% (n=175) had at least one GP consultation between colonoscopy and surgery. The median time from colonoscopy to surgery was 27 days for those with an intervening GP consultation and 15 days for those without the consultation. 55% (n=223) had a GP consultation up to 30 days postsurgery; it was more common in cases of patients who consulted a GP presurgery than for those who did not (65% and 47%, respectively, adjusted OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89, p=0.001). Of the 142 rectal cancer cases, 23% (n=33) had their surgery in a centre with radiotherapy facilities, with no difference between those who did and did not consult a GP presurgery (21% and 25% respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.63, p=0.76). Conclusions: Consulting a GP between colonoscopy and surgery was associated with a longer interval between diagnosis and treatment, and with further GP consultations postsurgery, but for rectal cancer cases it was not associated with treatment in a centre with radiotherapy facilities. GPs might require a more defined and systematic approach to CRC management.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877662629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84877662629

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 3

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 3

M1 - e002325

ER -

The varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this