Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 3361–3367 | Cite as

Improving Wait Times and Patient Experience Through Implementation of a Provincial Expedited Diagnostic Pathway for BI-RADS 5 Breast Lesions

  • Alison Laws
  • Alysha Crocker
  • Joseph Dort
  • David Olson
  • Adam Elwi
  • Susan Anderes
  • Shannon Parker
  • Angela Estey
  • Alysha Keehn
  • May Lynn QuanEmail author
Breast Oncology
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Long diagnostic intervals following abnormal breast imaging (DI) cause patient anxiety and possibly poorer prognosis. This study evaluates the effect of a provincial diagnostic pathway for BI-RADS 5 lesions on wait times and the patient-reported experience (PRE).

Methods

With multidisciplinary input, we developed a pathway for BI-RADS 5 lesions featuring expedited biopsy, early surgical referral, and nurse (RN) navigator support. Key diagnostic intervals were captured prospectively and compared with a prepathway control cohort. PRE data were obtained from a voluntary survey.

Results

1205 patients were managed on the BI-RADS 5 pathway with 797 primary care physicians, 57 imaging centers, and 2 regional breast programs participating. Median duration from DI to biopsy was 6 days, from biopsy to pathology report was 5 days, DI to surgical referral was 6 days, and DI to surgical consult was 21 days. Compared with 128 prepathway controls, median intervals from DI to surgical referral and consult were significantly improved (15 vs. 6 days, 26 vs. 21 days, p < 0.001). Amongst 294 women who completed the survey, 92% experienced ≥ 1 anxiety complaint during assessment; prompt surgical consultation and multiple features of RN support reduced anxiety, and wait time satisfaction was high (70%). Patient preferences varied for receiving biopsy results from a surgeon (57%) vs. another provider (43%).

Conclusions

A diagnostic pathway for BI-RADS 5 lesions reduced wait times and improved the patient experience through prompt surgical referral and RN navigator support. Differing preferences for receiving biopsy results emerged, and future iterations should incorporate individualized patient wishes.

Notes

Disclosures

No conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7558_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hislop TG, Harris SR, Jackson J, Thorne SE, Rousseau EJ et al. Satisfaction and anxiety for women during investigation of abnormal screening mammogram. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002; 76:245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychoongology. 2005; 14(11): 917–38.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lampic C, Thurfiell E, Bergh J, Shoden P. Short and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37:463–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganry O, Peng J, Dubreuil A. Influence of abnormal screens on delays and prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. J Med Screen. 2004; 11(1): 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olivotto IA, Gomi A, Cancej C, Brisson J, Tonita J, Kan L, et al. Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2002; 94(8): 2143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith EC, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H. Delay in surgical treatment and survival after breast cancer diagnosis in young women by race/ethnicity. JAMA Surg. 2013; 148(6):516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLaughlin JM, Anderson RT, Ferketich AK, Seiber EE, Balkrishnan R et al. Effect on survival of longer intervals between confirmed diagnosis and treatment initiation among low-income women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(36):4493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (2017). Breast cancer screening in Canada: monitoring and evaluation of quality indicators. Results Report, January 2011—December 2012. https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/topics/breast-cancer-screening-quality-indicators-2017/. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.
  9. 9.
    Chiarelli AM, Muradali D, Blackmore KM, Smith CR, Mirea L, et al. Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs. usual care. Br J Cancer. 2017; 116:1254–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borugian MJ, Kan L, Chu CCY, Ceballos K, Gelmon KA et al. Facilitated “fast track” referral reduces time from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis. Can J Public Health. 2008; 99(4):252–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decker KM, Harrison M, Chateau D. Influence of direct referrals on time to diagnosis after and abnormal breast screening result. Cancer Detect Prev. 2004; 28(5):361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Psooy BJ, Schreuer D, Borgaonkar J, Caines JS. Patient navigation: improving timeliness in the diagnosis of breast abnormalities. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2004; 55(3):145–50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alberta Health Services (2019). Cancer Strategic Clinical Network. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/scns/page7677.aspx. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.
  14. 14.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166(10):1092–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alberta Innovates (2010). ARECCI Ethics Screening Tool. http://aihealthsolutions.ca/arecci/screening. Accessed 21 Apr 2019.
  16. 16.
    Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (2014). Examining disparities in cancer control: a system performance special focus report. https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/topics/disparities-in-cancer-control/. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison Laws
    • 1
  • Alysha Crocker
    • 2
  • Joseph Dort
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • David Olson
    • 5
  • Adam Elwi
    • 6
  • Susan Anderes
    • 6
  • Shannon Parker
    • 6
  • Angela Estey
    • 1
  • Alysha Keehn
    • 1
    • 4
  • May Lynn Quan
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Surveillance and ReportingAlberta Health ServicesCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of OncologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, Misericordia Community HospitalUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  6. 6.Cancer Strategic Clinical NetworkAlberta Health ServicesEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Foothills Medical CentreCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations