Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Tests / investigations'.
-
Content Article
Findings The assessment of visual signs of jaundice in newborn babies is subjective and more challenging with babies who have black or brown skin. Stakeholders have differing opinions about the reliability of visual signs to detect jaundice in newborn babies. Some neonatal units have introduced safety measures to mitigate the risk of reliance on visual signs of jaundice. National guidance does not recommend routinely measuring bilirubin levels in babies who are not visibly jaundiced. National guidance for jaundice in newborn babies maybe more applicable to term babies (those born after 37 weeks of pregnancy) than those born prematurely. National guidance does not contain information on how to address the challenges of detecting jaundice in newborn babies with black or brown skin. Some universities providing education to NHS students on the detection of jaundice are seeking to ensure that teaching aids and literature represent the diversity of the population. Levels of bilirubin can vary according to the gestational age of a baby (how long the baby was in the womb). Laboratory staff do not calculate the gestational age of a baby and therefore whether their bilirubin level is within the expected range. Laboratory practice varies in terms of whether they set specific reference ranges for bilirubin in newborn babies; whether they have a defined threshold for communicating results to neonatal units; and whether the telephone alert limit (the level of bilirubin that triggers laboratory staff to report the result to clinical staff by telephone) reflects the thresholds in national guidance. Neonatal staff may be unaware that laboratories analyse blood samples to see if they are icteric (indicate jaundice). These staff will not know to look for a comment about this on blood test reports. Safety recommendations HSIB recommends that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviews the available evidence and updates its guidance if appropriate, regarding: the reliability of visual signs to detect jaundice in newborn babies, particularly in babies with black and brown skin risk factors for jaundice identified by this investigation, including prematurity. HSIB recommends that the Royal College of Pathologists works with stakeholders to understand current practice and make any appropriate recommendations to promote the adoption of an icteric threshold at which a bilirubin test may be cascaded or reported. HSIB recommends that the Royal College of Pathologists works with stakeholders to understand current practice and make any appropriate recommendations on neonatal specific reference ranges for total bilirubin and thresholds for direct communication of these results to clinicians. Safety observations HSIB makes the following safety observations: It may be beneficial for regulators of pathology services to consider the findings of the investigation and amend their guidance if necessary. It may be beneficial to develop a national standardised Early Warning System track and trigger observation chart for use in neonatal unit settings.- Posted
-
- Investigation
- UK
-
(and 6 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
All GPs to receive direct access to cancer tests
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
All GP practices in England will be able to book cancer tests directly for their patients from later this month, NHS bosses say. The option of GPs booking CT scans, ultrasounds and MRIs has been gradually rolled out in recent years, as community testing centres have opened. NHS England chief executive Amanda Pritchard will announce later all GPs will now be able to do this. GPs have previously relied on referring on to specialist hospital doctors. Before referring, they have to identify clear symptoms the patient may have a specific type of cancer. But only one out of every five cancer cases is diagnosed through these urgent GP referrals. Patients with less clear symptoms face long waits for check-ups or are diagnosed only after presenting at an accident-and-emergency (A&E) unit or being referred to hospital for something else. And Ms Pritchard will tell delegates at the NHS Providers annual conference of health managers, in Liverpool, today, she hopes the new initiative will lead to tens of thousands of cancer cases every year being detected sooner. Read full story Source: BBC News, 16 November 2022 -
News Article
Home blood test kits ‘piling work on NHS’
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Private companies are offering “misleading” home blood-testing kits that fuel health anxieties and pile pressure on the NHS, a report has suggested. There has been a boom in sales of the kits, which promise to reveal everything from cancer risk to how long patients can expect to live. But an investigation by the BMJ found these “unnecessary and potentially invasive tests” can be misleading and generate false alarms. The NHS is then left to “clear up the mess” as worried patients see GPs for reassurance or extra tests, piling more pressure on the overstretched service. One GP described patients coming in “clutching the results of private screening tests”, with doctors asked to review the results. The companies have been criticised for not providing sufficient follow-ups after the “poor quality and overhyped” tests, and for misleading results such as wrongly telling people their test levels are outside the “normal” range. Bernie Croal, president of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, said: “Most of the online [tests] will send the results to the patient with at best a sort of asterisk next to the ones that are abnormal, with advice to either pay some more money to get some sort of health professional to speak about it or go and see your own GP.” Doctors are calling for the tests to be more tightly regulated by the health watchdog, the Care Quality Commission. Read full story (paywalled) Source: The Times, 27 October 2022 -
Community Post
Should patients be actively involved in following up their referrals?
Steve Turner posted a topic in Improving patient safety
- Secondary impact
- Tests / investigations
-
(and 17 more)
Tagged with:
- Secondary impact
- Tests / investigations
- Treatment
- Transfer of care
- Reports / results
- Consultation
- Handover
- Organisation / service factors
- Flawed processes
- Long waiting list
- Deterioration
- Electronic Health Record
- Database
- Transparency
- Leadership exemplars
- Organisational Performance
- Patient engagement
- Information sharing
- Policies / Protocols / Procedures
I've been posting advice to patients advising them to personally follow up on referrals. Good advice I believe, which could save lives. I'm interested in people's views on this. This is the message I'm sharing: **Important message for patients relating to clinical referrals in England** We need a specific effort to ensure ALL referrals are followed up. Some are getting 'lost'. I urge all patients to check your referral has been received, ensure your GP and the clinical team you have been referred to have the referral. Make sure you have a copy yourself too. Things are difficult and we accept there are waits. Having information on the progress of your referral, and an assurance that is is being clinically prioritised is vital. If patients are fully informed and assured of the progress of their referrals in real-time it could save time and effort in fielding enquiries and prevent them going missing or 'falling into a black hole', which is a reality for some people. It would also prevent clinical priorities being missed. Maybe this is happening, and patients are being kept fully informed in real-time of the progress of their referrals. It would be good to hear examples of best practice.- Posted
-
- Secondary impact
- Tests / investigations
-
(and 17 more)
Tagged with:
- Secondary impact
- Tests / investigations
- Treatment
- Transfer of care
- Reports / results
- Consultation
- Handover
- Organisation / service factors
- Flawed processes
- Long waiting list
- Deterioration
- Electronic Health Record
- Database
- Transparency
- Leadership exemplars
- Organisational Performance
- Patient engagement
- Information sharing
- Policies / Protocols / Procedures
-
Content Article
-
Content Article
Recommendations are based around the following stages and aspects of care: Triage Appointment Follow-up Nursing Communication- Posted
-
- Multiple sclerosis
- Pandemic
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the NHS continues to operate under enormous pressure. It faces the challenge of responding to ongoing Covid infections alongside addressing a growing and complex backlog of care and treatment, with an over-stretched workforce. But this backlog is not limited to the much-covered issue of hospital-based surgical waiting lists. We are also increasingly hearing that GPs are struggling to ensure patients can access outpatient services. There is growing evidence that some hospitals are systematically rejecting new GP referrals to outpatient clinics. NHS England holds no formal data on rejected referrals. However, data relating to Appointment Slot Issues (ASIs) in the NHS e-Referral system, which handles around 95% of GP referrals in England, show that the number of referrals made for which there is no slot available has risen from 238,859 in February 2020 to 441,034 March 2022–an increase of 85%.[1] While these figures show lack of slots rather than specific numbers of rejected referrals, they clearly highlight a chronic lack of capacity in outpatient services. This correlates with the picture that has come out in our conversations with GPs—of patients with complex needs being pushed back to primary care because there is simply no space in outpatient clinics. The situation varies from speciality to speciality and is reportedly worse in areas such as mental health and neurology. When outpatient services reject referrals, it leaves primary care with the burden of sourcing provision from another hospital or directly meeting patients’ needs. Many of these patients have complex issues that require urgent assessment and treatment beyond the expertise of a GP. The issue is not GPs’ unwillingness to work hard for patients, but rather a concern about the impact that shifting large amounts of complex cases to primary care will have on patient safety. As Doncaster-based GP Dr Dean Eggitt told us, "Everyone's on board with shifting care to the community - it's the right thing to do for patients. But if we don't have the capacity to deal with it, people suffer." As the NHS comes under increasing pressure, we ask whether hospitals are changing the criteria for accepting referrals from GPs, and how this is leaving patients unable to access the care and treatment they need. Following discussion with patients and GPs, we have identified six urgent patient safety issues related to rejected referrals. We are calling for NHS England and NHS Improvement to investigate and understand the scale of these risks, and to take urgent action to address them. Rejected outpatient referrals: Urgent patient safety issues 1. Outpatient waiting lists are full Where hospitals are rejecting new GP referrals to outpatient clinics and specialist services, patients are being ‘passed around the system’ and sometimes deteriorating further while waiting for treatment. Recent analysis by the Institute for Government highlighted that “GPs are responsible for the day-to-day management of many chronic conditions and when patients do not receive specialist care these generally get worse and harder to manage.”[2] Our discussions with GPs suggest a lack of clarity on what to do if a patient’s referral is rejected. If a waiting list is full, GPs are being left to work out how to get their patients the specialist treatment they need. This is creating delays in care which has an impact on patient safety; in a recent poll of their members, the Doctors Association (DAUK) found that “90% of respondents believed a patient of theirs had come to harm because of a lack of access to outpatient services.”[3] These delays and rejections are also eroding patient trust in all areas of the healthcare system. In December 2021, DAUK wrote to Sajid Javid MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, about concerns over lack of access to secondary care referral pathways. They highlighted that “allowing specialists who have not assessed the patient themselves to make the decision whether a referral is justified … risks patient safety.”[3] Some GPs have also expressed concern that referrals are being rejected on minor technicalities by administrative staff, without ever being seen by clinicians. 2. Services are not being prioritised on clear and consistent criteria We believe that patients need to be prioritised according to their clinical need rather than constraints within secondary care, and that the NHS needs to be transparent with the public about referral assessment processes. GPs have also told us about difficulties in getting investigation referrals accepted. One GP told us that their Trust has recently changed ultrasound scan request criteria and these referrals are now only being accepted if the referring GP is certain the patient requires surgery. This undermines the ability of GPs to flag potential issues and diagnose patients safely, and many are resorting to workarounds that they know will get the referral accepted. Rejecting referrals based on waiting list capacity, without clear and consistent criteria, will also create a postcode lotteries in care across the country and exacerbate existing health inequalities. To ensure safety, new patients entering waiting lists need to be prioritised according to clinical need against those already on the list, rather than operating on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. In addition to this initial prioritisation, patients waiting for care need to be monitored and reprioritised as their level of need is likely to change as they wait. There is a major question as to who will be responsible for ensuring patient deterioration while waiting for care is picked up and acted upon. 3. ‘Advice and guidance’ is being used to limit waiting lists There is concern amongst GPs that they are being asked to manage patients through the ‘advice and guidance’ (A&G) system when it is not appropriate to do so. A&G aims to reduce outpatient appointments in line with ambitious NHS targets.[4] In their letter to the Secretary of State, DAUK noted, “A&G is a brilliant tool if there is a query over patient care, or some concern over whether a referral is appropriate. However, as GPs, if we have decided a referral is necessary, and the situation is outside our competency then we must refer onwards, in line with GMC advice.”[3] Since October 2021 Barts Health NHS Trust in London has closed other referral pathways across most specialties, so that GPs can only use the advice and guidance system for referrals (now called ‘advice and refer’ within the Trust).[5] NHS England has also introduced nationwide targets to reduce outpatient appointments and increase A&G.[6] While we recognise the value of trialling new approaches, we are concerned that this particular strategy presents a risk to patient safety at a time where pressures across the system mean it may be inappropriately used as a way of keeping hospital waiting lists down. 4. GPs are having to take responsibility for patients they are not qualified or supported to treat All GPs will have specific specialties in which they are less confident and therefore require additional support from secondary care. When this help is denied, patient safety is compromised. Dr Eggit told us about the risks involved in asking GPs to work on cases outside of their expertise: "GPs know what they are doing - if they refer it's because they know they need help. When they don't get the help they need to treat patients, it causes harm." With A&G being promoted as a way to reduce outpatient appointments, GPs are being asked to offer treatment pathways and prescribe medications that have not historically been dealt with in primary care, as they carry higher levels of risk. Without appropriate training and safeguards, this puts patients at potential risk and GPs in a precarious position. It also adds to the stress and decision-making burden of GPs, contributing to burnout, a problem primary care cannot afford at the moment. One GP based in North East England told us, “There is an ever-creeping transfer of management of complex conditions from secondary to primary care, without adequate training or resources to manage this safely. Locally, we have just lost our general geriatric clinic, where we would refer older patients with several serious conditions on numerous medications. As GPs, we do not have the capacity, resources or expertise to do a full geriatric assessment, and yet that is what we have been left to attempt. These patients require specialist assessment to identify the pertinent issues amongst all that complexity, and to decide how best to balance and treat these issues safely and acceptably for the patient. As a GP, this pervasive transfer of responsibility causes me significant anxiety and distress.” 5. Patient choice and shared decision making are being undermined The NHS needs to prioritise tackling the root cause of lack of capacity in secondary care to allow for true patient choice. According to the summary of the NHS England and NHS Improvement March 2022 board meeting, “increasing patient choice is at the core of the delivery plan [for tackling the backlog].”[7] However, patients are currently unable to have much input into how their care and treatment should proceed. We welcome work to improve the electronic referral system to allow patients more choice when referred to secondary care, but if appointments do not exist, this will offer no choice at all. Many patients are currently unable to have full and frank discussions about their priorities and options with a qualified specialist. They are instead having to rely on GPs’ limited knowledge of specialist areas, or guidance from a consultant, relayed by GP. There is no easy way for patients to ask a specialist about their treatment. One GP told us that the use of A&G is also damaging their relationship with patients. “When I relay that a consultant has suggested a treatment to a patient, they ask me why they aren’t seeing the consultant. I have to tell them the consultant has declined to see them, and that I will be treating them instead. It’s worrying for the patient and damages the trust they have in me and in the system.” 6. There is a lack of clarity on accountability When a patient is referred to secondary care and that referral is rejected, it is unclear who is responsible for accessing alternative advice and treatment. If a patient experiences negative outcomes such as their condition deteriorating as a result of delays, who is responsible? If they want to raise concerns or complain, should they do this with the GP that referred them, or the secondary care provider that didn’t accept the referral? There is also concern that GPs will be held legally accountable for advice given by consultants through A&G.[8] A survey of nearly 700 GPs carried out by the Medical Protection Society in 2021 demonstrates that clarity and reassurance for GPs is needed. It found that “nearly four in five GPs in the UK (77%) are concerned about facing investigation if patients come to harm as a result of delayed referrals or… services being unavailable or limited.”[9] Professor Martin Marshall, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “GPs understand the pressures colleagues working in secondary care are facing and will only refer patients if they think it is in their best interests. It’s really important that when GPs refer patients to specialist services, these referrals are taken seriously and not dismissed without good reason. “The patient safety issues raised in this article that relate to unsuccessful GP referrals are concerning and require further investigation. With the health service currently facing immense pressure, it is vital that acute and primary care work together to assess and respond to these concerns.” How should the NHS respond to these issues? As these six areas illustrate, the increase in rejected outpatient referrals is placing new pressures on GPs, with concerning implications for patient safety. We believe that NHS England NHS Improvement, in partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care, should take the following action: Investigate the extent and impact of the current level of rejected outpatient referrals. There is currently no clear way to assess the number of referrals that are being rejected, and the reasons for rejection. Develop an action plan in response to this, which should include specific steps to prevent outpatient referrals being inappropriately rejected or transferred to A&G. Undertake wide patient and public engagement to ensure transparent knowledge and promote wider understanding of these issues and their impact on health services. Acknowledging the immense pressure currently facing secondary care, we also see an opportunity for Clinical Commissioning Groups and incoming Integrated Care Systems to support primary and secondary care to work together on pathways focused on keeping patients safe, prioritising according to clinical need and rebuilding patient trust in the health system. If you are a GP, have you noticed an increase in rejected referrals or changes to the referral system? What has the impact been on your own workload and wellbeing, and the safety of patients? Please share your experiences in our community discussion so that we can continue to highlight these issues. Related reading Tackling the care and treatment backlog safely: Part 1 BMA - On the edge: GPs in despair (18 March 2022) Delivery plan for tackling the COVID-19 backlog of elective care (8 February 2022) NHS England waiting times for cancer referral and treatment at record high References 1 Appointment Slot Issue reports. NHS Digital. Accessed 4 May 2022 2 Performance Tracker 2021: General practice. Institute for Government website. Last accessed 14 April 2022 3 DAUK’s joint letter to the health secretary – lack of access to secondary care referral pathways. Doctors' Association UK. 3 December 2021 4 NHS England: Advice and Guidance. NHS England website. Last accessed 14 April 2022 5 Referrals (advice and refer, formerly advice and guidance). Barts Health NHS Trust website. Last accessed 14 April 2022 6 2022/23 priorities and operational planning guidance: Version 3. NHS England and NHS Improvement. 23 February 2022 7 NHS England and NHS Improvement Board meetings held in common: Elective Recovery Programme update. NHS England and NHS Improvement. 24 March 2022 8 Costanza Potter. 'GPs could be liable for hospital specialists’ advice under A&G, MDO warns'. Pulse Today. 6 April 2022 9 'Four in five GPs fear reprisal over delayed referrals'. Medical Protection. 4 June 2021- Posted
-
1
-
- GP
- Primary care
- (and 6 more)
-
News Article
Nearly 500 women had to have their cervical smear tests redone after it emerged the nurse who carried them out was not qualified. 'Dishonest' Alison Watts failed to tell her bosses at an NHS surgery that she failed her course and continued screening women for almost two and a half years. When it was discovered Watts had not passed the qualification, 461 women had to be recalled to have the cervix test again so they could have 'quality assured' tests. Now Watts has been struck off for the shocking breach of trust, with a tribunal ruling that she put patients at 'significant risk of harm'. A Nursing and Midwifery Council [NMC] report said: 'This was not a single instance of misconduct but involved 461 patients over a two year period. There is evidence of sustained dishonesty and deep-seated attitudinal issues.' Read full story Source: Daily Mail, 26 January 2021- Posted
-
- Tests / investigations
- Nurse
- (and 3 more)
-
News Article
A blood test designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer at an early stage will be trialled by the NHS. More than 165,000 people in England will be offered the tests from next year. If successful, the NHS hopes to expand it to 1m people from 2024. Sir Simon Stevens, NHS England chief executive, said early detection had the potential "to save many lives". While some welcomed the pilot, others cautioned the test was still untried and untested. Developing a blood test for cancer has been keeping scientists busy for many years without much success. Making one that's accurate and reliable has proved incredibly complex - the danger is that a test doesn't detect a person's cancer when they do have it, or it indicates someone has cancer when they don't. This test, developed by the Californian firm Grail, is designed to detect molecular changes in the blood caused by cancer in people with no obvious symptoms. As part of a large-scale pilot, also funded by the company, 140,000 participants aged between 50 and 79 will be asked to take the tests for the next three years. Another 25,000 people with possible cancer symptoms will also be offered testing after being referred to hospital in the normal way. Read full story Source: BBC News, 27 November 2020- Posted
-
- Tests / investigations
- Cancer
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
Patients' access to vital NHS tests delayed by warehouse failure
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Doctors are being told to "think carefully" before ordering any tests for their patients, amid shortages caused by a supply chain failure at a major diagnostics company. Swiss pharmaceutical firm Roche said problems with a move to a new warehouse had led to a "very significant" drop in its processing capacity. A spokesman said COVID-19 tests would be prioritised, but the backlog could affect tests including for cancer and heart disease. One NHS trust in the south west has already advised its GPs to stop all non-urgent blood tests. A memo seen by the BBC, sent to clinicians within a large hospital trust in London, said leaders were "preparing for a sustained disruption". "We urgently need all clinical teams to only send tests that are absolutely essential for immediate patient care, delaying testing where possible," it said. Thyroid and cortisol tests were unavailable, while certain cholesterol, liver function and inflammation tests were "severely restricted". Read full story Source: BBC News, 7 October 2020 -
News Article
People awaiting a CT or MRI scan will be able to have one on the high street under NHS plans to improve access to diagnostic tests. NHS England plans to set up a network of new “one-stop shops” where patients will be able to have scans closer to home rather than having to go hospital. They are intended to reduce the risk of patients getting COVID-19 in hospital and speed up the time it takes to undergo diagnostic testing by having more capacity. NHS England’s governing board approved a plan on Thursday by Prof Sir Mike Richards to create “community diagnostic hubs across the country over the next few years”. It is part of a planned “radical overhaul” in the way patients access a range of diagnostic tests, screening appointments and other services. The hubs, which would open six days a week, may also perform blood tests, lung function checks and endoscopies, in which a camera is put down the throat. The new facilities would be sited in disused shops or in shopping centres. They are part of the NHS’s drive to make it easier for people to be tested without having to go to hospital, amid concern that reluctance to do so is part of the reason fewer people are undergoing cancer screening. It is already undertaking lung cancer tests in 10 mobile centres that are parked at supermarkets and shopping centres. Bigger hubs could also offer mammograms, eye health checks, scans for pregnant women, hearing tests and gynaecological services. Hospital bosses welcomed the plan, which they said should reduce waiting times. Miriam Deakin, the director of policy and strategy at NHS Providers, which represents NHS trusts, said: “Doing these checks in the community rather than in hospital could support trusts as they grapple with a second wave of Covid-19, winter pressures and tackling backlogs of care.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 1 October 2020 -
News Article
Leaked data gives first view of growing cancer waiting list post covid peak
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Official data from mid-September shows that nearly 6,400 people had waited more than 100 days following a referral to cancer services. The leaked data reveals for the first time the length of the cancer waiting list in the wake of the first pandemic peak, during which much diagnostic and elective cancer care was paused. The list consists of those waiting for a test, the outcome of a test, or for treatment. NHS England and Improvement only publish waiting times for patients who have been treated – not the number still waiting – so this information has been secret. The data, obtained from official emails seen by HSJ, showed the total number of people on the cancer waiting list grew substantially, from 50,000 to around 58,000, between the start of August and the middle of September. Of the 6,400 people recorded to be waiting more than 104 days on 13 September, 472 had a “decision to treat classification”, meaning they have cancer and are awaiting treatment. NHS England has said reducing the cancer waiting list would be overseen by a national “taskforce”, which is being chaired by national director for cancer Peter Johnson. Experts have warned the delays already stored up in the system could cost tens of thousands of lives as patients go undiagnosed or have their diagnosis and treatment later than they otherwise would. HSJ asked NHS England if harm reviews had been carried out for those on the waiting list and whether it had discovered if those waiting longer than104 days had been harmed, but did not receive an answer. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 29 September 2020- Posted
-
- Pandemic
- Secondary impact
- (and 5 more)
-
News Article
Women aged 70 or over are receiving substandard care to tackle ovarian cancer with one in five patients in their seventies getting no treatment whatsoever, a new study has found. A report from Ovarian Cancer Action revealed almost half of patients in their 70s do not undergo surgery to treat the disease, even though it provides the best long-term prognosis for one of the most common types of cancer in women. In total, around one in five (22%) of ovarian cancer patients aged 70 to 79 and three in five women with ovarian cancer who were over 80 years old were given no treatment for the disease. The inadequate healthcare given to older ovarian cancer patients causes a disproportionately high short term death rate for them, the study found. The study found older patients are substantially less likely to be referred by their GP for diagnostic tests such as ultrasounds when ovarian cancer symptoms surface. Dr Susana Banerjee, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, said: “With an ageing population, many more patients with ovarian cancer are over the age of 70, so there is an urgent need to understand the best way to effectively treat older women." “Optimising patients for treatment through frailty assessments and interventions, sharing best practice across cancer centres and representing older patients in clinical trials are important steps towards ensuring equal access to effective and tolerable treatment that could help more women live beyond their diagnosis, with a good quality of life, no matter their age.”- Posted
-
- Older People (over 65)
- Cancer
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
Smear tests: Women to trial 'do-it-at-home' kits for NHS
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
About 31,000 women in London are being offered "do-it-at-home" tests to check for early warnings of cervical cancer, as part of an NHS trial. It could be a way to encourage more women to get screened, experts hope. Embarrassment, cultural barriers and worries about Covid, along with many other factors, can stop women going for smear tests at a clinic or GP surgery. Smear-test delays during the pandemic prompted calls for home-screening kits from cervical cancer charities. The swabbing involves using a long, thin cotton bud to take a sample from inside the vagina, which is then sent by post for testing. If the results reveal an infection called human papillomavirus (HPV) they will be invited to their GP for a standard smear test to closely examine the cells of their cervix. Dr Anita Lim, from King's College London, who is leading the YouScreen trial, said: "Women who don't come for regular screening are at the highest risk of developing cervical cancer. "So it is crucial that we find ways like this to make screening easier and protect women from what is a largely preventable cancer. Self-sampling is a game-changer." Read full story Source: BBC News, 24 February 2021- Posted
-
- Home
- Obstetrics and gynaecology/ Maternity
- (and 3 more)
-
News Article
CT scan catches 70% of lung cancers at early stage, NHS study finds
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Thousands of lives could be saved if people at risk of developing Britain’s deadliest cancer were screened to diagnose it before it becomes incurable, a major NHS study has found. Giving smokers and ex-smokers a CT scan uncovers cancerous lung tumours when they are at an early enough stage so they can still be removed, rather than continuing to grow unnoticed, it shows. Experts are demanding the government moves to bring in routine CT scanning of smokers and ex-smokers in order to cut the huge death toll from lung cancer. About 48,000 people a year are diagnosed with the disease in the UK and 35,100 die from it – 96 a day. Lung cancer is a particularly brutal form of cancer because it is hard to detect and three out of four cases are diagnosed at stage three or four, when it is already too late to give the person potentially life-saving treatment. However, the Summit study, being run by specialists in the disease at University College London Hospital NHS trust, offers real hope that lung cancer can become a condition that is detected early. CT scanning meant that 70% of the growths detected in people’s lungs were identified when the disease was at stage one or two – a huge increase in the usual rate of early diagnosis. “It’s really a major breakthrough for lung cancer,” Dr Sam Janes of UCLH, the senior investigator of the trial, told the Guardian. "Lung cancer has never had anything that enabled us to detect this devastating cancer earlier and offer curative treatment to this number of lung cancer patients.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 14 February 2021- Posted
-
- Diagnosis
- Tests / investigations
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with: