General Practice and Primary Care - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemThe Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre lung cancer clinical audit: collecting the UK National Lung Cancer Audit data from hospitals in Australia(WILEY, 2019-08)BACKGROUND: Clinical audit may improve practice in cancer service provision. The UK National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) collects data for all new cases of thoracic cancers. AIM: To collect similar data for our Victorian patients from six hospitals within the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre and associated Western and Central Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective audit of all newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer and mesothelioma in 2013 across the six Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre/Western and Central Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service hospitals. The objectives were to adapt the NLCA data set for use in the Australian context, to analyse the findings using descriptive statistics and to determine feasibility of implementing a routine, ongoing audit similar to that in the UK. Individual data items were adapted from the NLCA by an expert steering committee. Data were collated from the Victorian Cancer Registry, Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset and individual hospital databases. Individual medical records were audited for missing data. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-five patients were diagnosed across the sites in 2013. Most were aged 65-80 (55%) and were male (62%). Most had non-small-cell lung cancer (81%) with 9% diagnosed with small cell lung cancer and 2% with mesothelioma. Data completeness varied significantly between fields. For those with higher levels of completeness, headline indicators of clinical care were comparable with NLCA data. The Victorian population seem to lack access to specialist lung cancer nurse services. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer care at participating hospitals appeared to be comparable with the UK in 2013. In future, prospective data collection should be harmonised across sites and correlated with survival outcomes. One area of concern was a lack of documented access to specialist nursing services.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableChallenges in data linkage - experiences from an upper gastrointestinal cancer data linkage study(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2021-09)Abstract Background Linked, population-level data is valuable for mapping patterns of care and evaluating health service utilisation, particularly in difficult-to-reach populations. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers have a dismal prognosis, creating difficulties engaging patients in research. The utility of a linked dataset in this population is of high value. Methods Key objectives included identifying the operational and feasibility issues associated with linking Australian state-based administrative and registry data for understanding health service utilisation in UGI cancers. Datasets pertained to hospital admissions, radiotherapy, community health, primary care, palliative care, Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule’s and UGI cancers. Results From a logistical perspective, data access request approval processes varied, with some requiring consent to be sought from individual services contributing data. The availability of unique person-level identifying information varied widely. Additionally, the time period of data capture differed between and within datasets, limiting the quality of the linked data. Significant costs were associated with linking with primary care and Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule’s. Federal dataset linkage required at least a one-year waiting period. Conclusions Whilst in theory data linkage is a powerful mechanism for obtaining population-level data, in reality, there are many logistical and financial barriers to linking multiple datasets. Consequently, critical data, which has the potential to inform policy and improve patient outcomes, cannot be procured. Key messages Logistical and financial challenges are associated with linking administrative and registry datasets for research, limiting the potential of data linkage.
-
ItemThe Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes Trial: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural cancer patients in Western Australia(SPRINGERNATURE, 2017-11-07)BACKGROUND: Rural Australians have poorer survival for most common cancers, due partially to later diagnosis. Internationally, several initiatives to improve cancer outcomes have focused on earlier presentation to healthcare and timely diagnosis. We aimed to measure the effect of community-based symptom awareness and general practice-based educational interventions on the time to diagnosis in rural patients presenting with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer in Western Australia. METHODS: 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Community Intervention: cancer symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians. GP intervention: resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local cancer referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits. Trial Area A received the community symptom awareness and Trial Area B acted as the community campaign control region. Within both Trial Areas general practices were randomised to the GP intervention or control. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total diagnostic interval (TDI). RESULTS: 1358 people with incident breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer were recruited. There were no significant differences in the median or ln mean TDI at either intervention level (community intervention vs control: median TDI 107.5 vs 92 days; ln mean difference 0.08 95% CI -0.06-0.23 P=0.27; GP intervention vs control: median TDI 97 vs 96.5 days; ln mean difference 0.004 95% CI -0.18-0.19 P=0.99). There were no significant differences in the TDI when analysed by factorial design, tumour group or sub-intervals of the TDI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest trial to test the effect of community campaign or GP interventions on timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We found no effect of either intervention. This may reflect limited dose of the interventions, or the limited duration of follow-up. Alternatively, these interventions do not have a measurable effect on time to cancer diagnosis.