↓ Skip to main content

The role of primary care in cancer diagnosis via emergency presentation: qualitative synthesis of significant event reports

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Cancer, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
The role of primary care in cancer diagnosis via emergency presentation: qualitative synthesis of significant event reports
Published in
British Journal of Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2015.42
Pubmed ID
Authors

E D Mitchell, G Rubin, L Merriman, U Macleod

Abstract

Background:Patients diagnosed with cancer in the context of an emergency presentation (EP) have poorer outcomes. It is often assumed that such patients present to the emergency department without consulting their general practitioner (GP). Little work has been done to identify primary care involvement before hospital attendance.Methods:Participating primary care practices completed a significant event audit (SEA) report for the last patient diagnosed with cancer as a result of an EP. Accounts were synthesised and a qualitative approach to analysis undertaken.Results:SEAs for 222 patients were analysed. A range of cancers were included, the most common being lung (32.4%) and upper gastrointestinal (19.8%). In most cases, patients had contact with their practice before diagnosis, primarily in the period immediately before admission. In only eight cases had there been no input from primary care. Accounts of protracted primary care contact generally demonstrated complexity, often related to comorbidity, patient-mediated factors or reassurance provided by negative investigations. Learning points identified by practices centred on the themes of presentation and diagnosis, consultation and safety-netting, communication and system issues, patient factors and referral guidelines.Conclusions:There is extensive primary care input into patients whose diagnosis results from EP, and for the most part potential 'delay' in referral can be reasonably explained by the complexity of the presentation or by coexisting patient factors.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 3 March 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.42 www.bjcancer.com.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Unspecified 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 54%
Unspecified 11 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#450,128
of 9,727,766 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#248
of 4,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,079
of 209,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#20
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,727,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 209,005 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.