Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGoldsbury DEen_AU
dc.contributor.authorO'Connell DLen_AU
dc.contributor.authorHarris Men_AU
dc.contributor.authorPascoe Sen_AU
dc.contributor.authorBarton Men_AU
dc.contributor.authorOlver Ien_AU
dc.contributor.authorSpigelman Aen_AU
dc.contributor.authorBeilby Jen_AU
dc.contributor.authorVeitch Cen_AU
dc.contributor.authorWeller Den_AU
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/30617
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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 managementen_AU
dc.publisherBMJ Openen_AU
dc.subjectanalysisen_AU
dc.subjectradiotherapyen_AU
dc.subjectRegistriesen_AU
dc.subjectResearchen_AU
dc.subjectsurgeryen_AU
dc.subjectWalesen_AU
dc.subjectAustraliaen_AU
dc.subjectcanceren_AU
dc.subjectcancer registryen_AU
dc.subjectCohort Studiesen_AU
dc.subjectcolorectal canceren_AU
dc.subjectDesignen_AU
dc.subjectdiagnosisen_AU
dc.subjectNew South Walesen_AU
dc.subject.otherCancer Type - Bowel & Colorectal Canceren_AU
dc.subject.otherTreatment - Resources and Infrastructureen_AU
dc.subject.otherCancer Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes Research - Health Services, Economic and Health Policy Analysesen_AU
dc.titleThe varying role of the GP in the pathway between colonoscopy and surgery for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort studyen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002325
dc.relation.otherThis work was supported by Cancer Australia (2007; a Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme (510348)).en_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.