↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 2,406)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
68 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosing cancer in primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x694169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Swann, Sean McPhail, Jana Witt, Brian Shand, Gary A Abel, Sara Hiom, Jem Rashbass, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Greg Rubin, The National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Steering Group, Swann, R, McPhail, S, Witt, J, Shand, B, Abel, GA, Hiom, S, Rashbass, J, Lyratzopoulos, G, Rubin, G, National Cancer Diagnosis Audit Steering Group,

Abstract

Continual improvements in diagnostic processes are needed to minimise the proportion of patients with cancer who experience diagnostic delays. Clinical audit is a means of achieving this. To characterise key aspects of the diagnostic process for cancer and to generate baseline measures for future re-audit. Clinical audit of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England. Information on patient and tumour characteristics held in the English National Cancer Registry was supplemented by information from GPs in participating practices. Data items included diagnostic timepoints, patient characteristics, and clinical management. Data were collected on 17 042 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer during 2014 from 439 practices. Participating practices were similar to non-participating ones, particularly regarding population age, urban/rural location, and practice-based patient experience measures. The median diagnostic interval for all patients was 40 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-86 days). Most patients were referred promptly (median primary care interval 5 days [IQR 0-27 days]). Where GPs deemed diagnostic delays to have occurred (22% of cases), patient, clinician, or system factors were responsible in 26%, 28%, and 34% of instances, respectively. Safety netting was recorded for 44% of patients. At least one primary care-led investigation was carried out for 45% of patients. Most patients (76%) had at least one existing comorbid condition; 21% had three or more. The findings identify avenues for quality improvement activity and provide a baseline for future audit of the impact of 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on management and referral of suspected cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2018.
All research outputs
#91,641
of 11,791,436 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#34
of 2,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,131
of 320,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#4
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,791,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.