Evaluating a novel patient pathway to manage symptomatic breast referrals (the blue flag clinic): a longitudinal observational study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Tje Hubbard, X Liu, M Sulieman, P Drew, I Brown, R English, I Abbas, K Potiszil, M Barta, N Jackson, P King
{"title":"Evaluating a novel patient pathway to manage symptomatic breast referrals (the blue flag clinic): a longitudinal observational study.","authors":"Tje Hubbard, X Liu, M Sulieman, P Drew, I Brown, R English, I Abbas, K Potiszil, M Barta, N Jackson, P King","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2023.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A novel referral pathway for exhibited breast symptom (EBS) referrals to manage increasing referrals of urgent suspected cancer (USC) was implemented in our trust. We report on the safety and effect on compliance with the 2-week-wait rule (2WW).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-centre longitudinal observational study included all patients referred to a UK breast unit during 13 May 2019 to 27 March 2020 (period 1) and 8 February 2021 to 31 January 2022 (period 2). USC referrals were assessed in a one-stop clinic (red flag clinic [RFC]); EBS referrals were assessed in a new clinic in which clinical evaluation was performed and imaging occurred subsequently (blue flag clinic [BFC]). Patients were followed up to determine the symptomatic interval cancer rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 9,695 referrals; 1,655 referrals (17%) were assessed in the BFC after 63 exclusions. Some 95.9% of patients had a benign clinical examination (P1/P2), 80.1% had imaging (mammogram or ultrasound) and 4% had a tissue biopsy. In total, 16/1,655 (0.97%) BFC patients and 510/7,977 (8.2%) RFC patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (breast cancer detection rate). Some 1,631 patients (with 1,639 referrals) were discharged and followed up for a median of 17 months (interquartile range 12-32) with one subsequent cancer diagnosis (symptomatic interval cancer rate, 0.06%). Implementation of the BFC pathway increased 3-month average trust performance of USC referrals with 2WW standard from 8.5% to 98.7% (period 1) and from 30% to 66% (period 2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BFC pathway for EBS patients is safe and implementation led to improvement against the 2WW target for USC referrals, ensuring resources are prioritised to patients with the highest likelihood of breast cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":"397-402"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12208734/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2023.0028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: A novel referral pathway for exhibited breast symptom (EBS) referrals to manage increasing referrals of urgent suspected cancer (USC) was implemented in our trust. We report on the safety and effect on compliance with the 2-week-wait rule (2WW).

Methods: A single-centre longitudinal observational study included all patients referred to a UK breast unit during 13 May 2019 to 27 March 2020 (period 1) and 8 February 2021 to 31 January 2022 (period 2). USC referrals were assessed in a one-stop clinic (red flag clinic [RFC]); EBS referrals were assessed in a new clinic in which clinical evaluation was performed and imaging occurred subsequently (blue flag clinic [BFC]). Patients were followed up to determine the symptomatic interval cancer rate.

Results: There were 9,695 referrals; 1,655 referrals (17%) were assessed in the BFC after 63 exclusions. Some 95.9% of patients had a benign clinical examination (P1/P2), 80.1% had imaging (mammogram or ultrasound) and 4% had a tissue biopsy. In total, 16/1,655 (0.97%) BFC patients and 510/7,977 (8.2%) RFC patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (breast cancer detection rate). Some 1,631 patients (with 1,639 referrals) were discharged and followed up for a median of 17 months (interquartile range 12-32) with one subsequent cancer diagnosis (symptomatic interval cancer rate, 0.06%). Implementation of the BFC pathway increased 3-month average trust performance of USC referrals with 2WW standard from 8.5% to 98.7% (period 1) and from 30% to 66% (period 2).

Conclusions: The BFC pathway for EBS patients is safe and implementation led to improvement against the 2WW target for USC referrals, ensuring resources are prioritised to patients with the highest likelihood of breast cancer.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估一种新的患者途径来管理症状性乳房转诊(蓝旗诊所):一项纵向观察研究。
简介:一个新的转诊途径展示乳房症状(EBS)转诊管理日益增加的转诊紧急疑似癌症(USC)在我们的信任实施。我们报告了符合2周等待规则(2WW)的安全性和效果。方法:一项单中心纵向观察研究纳入了2019年5月13日至2020年3月27日(第1期)和2021年2月8日至2022年1月31日(第2期)期间在英国乳腺部门转诊的所有患者。南加州大学的转诊在一站式诊所(红旗诊所[RFC])进行评估;在一个新的诊所对EBS转诊进行评估,在那里进行临床评估并随后进行影像学检查(蓝旗诊所[BFC])。对患者进行随访,以确定症状期癌症发生率。结果:共转介9695人;在63例排除后,BFC评估了1,655例转诊(17%)。95.9%的患者进行了良性临床检查(P1/P2), 80.1%的患者进行了影像学检查(乳房x光片或超声),4%的患者进行了组织活检。BFC患者中有16/ 1655例(0.97%)和RFC患者中有510/ 7977例(8.2%)被诊断为乳腺癌(乳腺癌检出率)。约1631名患者(1639名转诊患者)出院,随访中位数为17个月(四分位数间距为12-32),随后有一次癌症诊断(症状期癌症率,0.06%)。BFC途径的实施使采用2WW标准的USC推荐人的3个月平均信任绩效从8.5%提高到98.7%(第一阶段),从30%提高到66%(第二阶段)。结论:EBS患者的BFC途径是安全的,实施后可改善USC转诊患者的2WW目标,确保资源优先用于乳腺癌可能性最高的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
316
期刊介绍: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信