A single common urgent pathway for all colorectal referrals reduces time to diagnosis and treatment

Objective  Guidelines for the urgent referral of patients with suspected colorectal cancer were introduced in 2000. They aimed to facilitate the prompt diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptoms suggestive of malignant disease. Recent assessment of these guidelines has suggested that although they identify 9–14% of patients with colorectal cancer, they may be used inappropriately and may lead to delays in treatment for those patients with cancers whose symptoms do not fit the guidelines. We aimed to assess the effect of introducing a single pathway for all referrals irrespective of indicated urgency.

[1]  N. Hall,et al.  How has the ‘two‐week wait’ rule affected the presentation of colorectal cancer? , 2005, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[2]  S. Chaudhri,et al.  Evolution of the two‐week rule pathway – direct access colonoscopy vs outpatient appointments: one year's experience and patient satisfaction survey , 2005, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[3]  J. Virjee,et al.  Fast‐track barium enema: meeting the two‐week wait rule for patients with suspected colorectal cancer , 2005, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[4]  J. Trickett,et al.  A study on the routes of referral for patients with colorectal cancer and its affect on the time to surgery and pathological stage , 2004, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[5]  P. Shah,et al.  Referral guidelines for colorectal cancer--do they work? , 2004, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[6]  R. Welbourn,et al.  Reduction in the proportion of patients with colorectal cancer presenting as an emergency following the introduction of fast‐track flexible sigmoidoscopy: a three‐year prospective observational study , 2004, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[7]  D. O’Leary,et al.  The Department of Health’s “two week standard” for bowel cancer: is it working? , 2004, Gut.

[8]  K. Gunning,et al.  Guidelines, compliance, and effectiveness: a 12 months’ audit in an acute district general healthcare trust on the two week rule for suspected colorectal cancer , 2002, Postgraduate medical journal.

[9]  S. Walsh,et al.  The fourteen-day rule and colorectal cancer. , 2002, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[10]  S. Selvachandran,et al.  Prediction of colorectal cancer by a patient consultation questionnaire and scoring system: a prospective study , 2002, The Lancet.

[11]  P. Ewings,et al.  A prospective study to assess the implementation of a fast‐track system to meet the two‐week target for colorectal cancer in Somerset , 2002, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[12]  Chris J. Seal,et al.  1. USE OF THE SIMPLE CLINICAL COLITIS ACTIVITY INDEX (SCCAI) TO DEFINE RELAPSE OF ULCERATIVE COLITIS (UC) , 2001 .