↓ 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 25% 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Master 13 13%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

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
#1,357,047
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#553
of 10,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,049
of 258,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#25
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. 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 258,169 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 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.