Peta Hughes - The Royal Marsden
Peta Hughes - The Royal Marsden
Peta Hughes - The Royal Marsden
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Appropriateness of two week<br />
rule referrals for skin cancer<br />
<strong>Peta</strong> <strong>Hughes</strong><br />
Clinical Nurse Specialist - Skin & Melanoma<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong> NHS Foundation Trust<br />
1
2<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Introduction<br />
An audit was undertaken at <strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
(TRM) to determine the appropriateness of two week<br />
wait referrals for a suspected skin cancer (MM/ SCC).
3<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Aims & objectives<br />
<strong>The</strong> aim of the audit was to:<br />
1. Evaluate appropriateness of referrals<br />
2. Determine the demographics of patients referred by<br />
two week rule to TRM<br />
3. Evaluate the breach rate for referrals<br />
4. Evaluate the take up/use of of SWLCN referral<br />
proforma<br />
5. Determine the pick up rate of skin cancer
4<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Method<br />
1. 20 sets of notes were identified: 10 in Fulham Rd<br />
and 10 in Sutton<br />
2. Timeframe: 6-month period from September 2011<br />
3. A piloted spreadsheet (audit proforma) was<br />
populated
5<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
To be completed with audit proformas template
6<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Results<br />
1. Appropriateness:<br />
– Appropriate: 17/20 [85%]<br />
– Inappropriate reasons: 1 benign, 2 BCC & not offering<br />
diagnosis (and no biopsy)<br />
– If no diagnosis offered = ‘inappropriate’: therefore 14/20<br />
[70%] however one of these turned out to be melanoma,<br />
therefore appropriate, two others without diagnoses were not<br />
biopsied therefore possibly ‘inappropriate’<br />
– If GPs are given benefit of doubt, appropriateness: 75-85%<br />
– Location of lesion not stated: 2/20 [10%]
7<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Results (continued)<br />
2. Demographics:<br />
– F: 7 & M: 12 (1 not identified)<br />
– Age range: 29-92<br />
3. Breach rate:<br />
– 3/20 [15%]: all due to DNA or cancellation by patient<br />
4. SWLCN proforma:<br />
– Proforma used: 7/20 [35%](TRM is excluded on one version)<br />
– Alternative forms: 3/20 [15%]<br />
– Referral letter (stating TWR): 9/20 [45%]<br />
– From private clinic: 1/20 [5%]
8<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Results (continued)<br />
5. Pick-up rate (consultant diagnostic breakdown):<br />
– SCC/ MM: 6/19 [32%] (confirmed with histology: 3/19 [16%])<br />
– BCC: 2/19 [11%] (confirmed with histology: 2/19 [11%])<br />
– Total biopsies: 11/19 [58%], showing 5 cancers [26%]<br />
– Total skin cancers (confirmed): 6/20 [30%], one was for<br />
squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma (referred from private<br />
practice and already biopsied)
9<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Conclusion<br />
1. Referral proformas for suspected skin cancers to TRM are<br />
used less than SWCLN as a whole [35% vs. 59%]<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> appropriateness of referral is not particularly high when<br />
compared with SWLCN [75-85% vs. 82-96%]<br />
3. <strong>The</strong> pick-up rate for skin cancer is relatively good [26% vs.<br />
25%]<br />
4. <strong>The</strong> breach rate for this small sample was relatively high [15%<br />
vs. 9%]
10<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Marsden</strong><br />
Action plan<br />
1. Collate available proformas and decide on most<br />
effective. Make revisions as needed (via TWG or<br />
London Alliance)<br />
2. Agree with PCTs/commissioning groups how to<br />
make best use of proformas, and the TWR service,<br />
for skin cancer (via TWG/ London Alliance)