Pre-referral General Practitioner Consultations and Subsequent Experience of Cancer Care

Evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey

Published in: European Journal of Cancer Care, 2015

Posted on on August 04, 2015

by Silvia C. Mendonca, Gary A. Abel, Catherine L. Saunders, J. Wardle, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Read More

Access further information on this document at European Journal of Cancer Care

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Prolonged diagnostic intervals may negatively affect the patient experience of subsequent cancer care, but evidence about this assertion is sparse. We analysed data from 73 462 respondents to two English Cancer Patient Experience Surveys to examine whether patients with three or more (3+) pre-referral consultations were more likely to report negative experiences of subsequent care compared with patients with one or two consultations in respect of 12 a priori selected survey questions. For each of 12 experience items, logistic regression models were used, adjusting for prior consultation category, cancer site, socio-demographic case-mix and response tendency (to capture potential variation in critical response tendencies between individuals). There was strong evidence (P < 0.01 for all) that patients with 3+ pre-referral consultations reported worse care experience for 10/12 questions, with adjusted odds ratios compared with patients with 1–2 consultations ranging from 1.10 (95% confidence intervals 1.03–1.17) to 1.68 (1.60–1.77), or between +1.8% and +10.6% greater percentage reporting a negative experience. Associations were stronger for processes involving primary as opposed to hospital care; and for evaluation than report items. Considering 1, 2, 3–4 and '5+' pre-referral consultations separately a 'dose–response' relationship was apparent. We conclude that there is a negative association between multiple pre-diagnostic consultations with a general practitioner and the experience of subsequent cancer care.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.