Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot

Abstract Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a “lung health check” (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the W...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Emily C. Bartlett, Jonathan Belsey, Jane Derbyshire, Katie Morris, Michelle Chen, James Addis, Maria Martins, Carole A. Ridge, Sujal R. Desai, Saeed Mirsadraee, Simon Padley, Sarah Whiteside, Pritti Vaghani, Jaymin B. Morjaria, Samuel V. Kemp, Anand Devaraj
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Diseases of the respiratory system RC705-779
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/a561d84ec9194deebb8c63a419d6bc8c
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:a561d84ec9194deebb8c63a419d6bc8c
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:a561d84ec9194deebb8c63a419d6bc8c2021-12-02T17:52:22ZImplications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot10.1038/s41533-021-00246-82055-1010https://doaj.org/article/a561d84ec9194deebb8c63a419d6bc8c2021-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-021-00246-8https://doaj.org/toc/2055-1010Abstract Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a “lung health check” (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.Emily C. BartlettJonathan BelseyJane DerbyshireKatie MorrisMichelle ChenJames AddisMaria MartinsCarole A. RidgeSujal R. DesaiSaeed MirsadraeeSimon PadleySarah WhitesidePritti VaghaniJaymin B. MorjariaSamuel V. KempAnand DevarajNature PortfolioarticleDiseases of the respiratory systemRC705-779ENnpj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, Vol 31, Iss 1, Pp 1-6 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Diseases of the respiratory system RC705-779
spellingShingle	Diseases of the respiratory system RC705-779 Emily C. Bartlett Jonathan Belsey Jane Derbyshire Katie Morris Michelle Chen James Addis Maria Martins Carole A. Ridge Sujal R. Desai Saeed Mirsadraee Simon Padley Sarah Whiteside Pritti Vaghani Jaymin B. Morjaria Samuel V. Kemp Anand Devaraj Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
description	Abstract Regional lung cancer screening (LCS) is underway in England, involving a “lung health check” (LHC) and low-dose CT scan for those at high risk of cancer. Incidental findings from LHCs or CTs are usually referred to primary care. We describe the proportion of participants referred from the West London LCS pilot to primary care, the indications for referral, the number of general practitioner (GP) attendances and consequent changes to patient management, and provide an estimated cost-burden analysis for primary care. A small proportion (163/1542, 10.6%) of LHC attendees were referred to primary care, primarily for suspected undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55/163, 33.7%) or for QRISK® (63/163, 38.7%) assessment. Ninety one of 159 (57.2%) participants consenting to follow-up attended GP appointments; costs incurred by primary care were estimated at £5.69/LHC participant. Patient management changes occurred in only 36/159 (22.6%) referred participants. LHCs result in a small increase to primary care workload provided a strict referral protocol is adhered to. Changes to patient management arising from incidental findings referrals are infrequent.
format	article
author	Emily C. Bartlett Jonathan Belsey Jane Derbyshire Katie Morris Michelle Chen James Addis Maria Martins Carole A. Ridge Sujal R. Desai Saeed Mirsadraee Simon Padley Sarah Whiteside Pritti Vaghani Jaymin B. Morjaria Samuel V. Kemp Anand Devaraj
author_facet	Emily C. Bartlett Jonathan Belsey Jane Derbyshire Katie Morris Michelle Chen James Addis Maria Martins Carole A. Ridge Sujal R. Desai Saeed Mirsadraee Simon Padley Sarah Whiteside Pritti Vaghani Jaymin B. Morjaria Samuel V. Kemp Anand Devaraj
author_sort	Emily C. Bartlett
title	Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
title_short	Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
title_full	Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
title_fullStr	Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
title_full_unstemmed	Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot
title_sort	implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a uk pilot
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/a561d84ec9194deebb8c63a419d6bc8c
work_keys_str_mv	AT emilycbartlett implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT jonathanbelsey implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT janederbyshire implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT katiemorris implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT michellechen implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT jamesaddis implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT mariamartins implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT carolearidge implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT sujalrdesai implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT saeedmirsadraee implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT simonpadley implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT sarahwhiteside implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT prittivaghani implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT jayminbmorjaria implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT samuelvkemp implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot AT ananddevaraj implicationsofincidentalfindingsfromlungscreeningforprimarycaredatafromaukpilot
_version_	1718379245301923840

Implications of incidental findings from lung screening for primary care: data from a UK pilot

Ejemplares similares