4.7 Article

Performance of standardized cancer patient pathways in Sweden visualized using observational data and a state-transition model

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46757-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) were introduced in Swedish healthcare to improve diagnostics, patient satisfaction and equity of care. The use of CPPs efficiently detects cancer, with some targets being met.
Standardized Cancer Patient Pathways (CPPs) were introduced in Swedish healthcare starting in 2015 to improve diagnostics for patients with symptoms of cancer, patient satisfaction and equity of care between healthcare providers. An inclusion target and a time target were set. Our primary aim was to visualize the patient population going through CPPs, in terms of investigation time and indications of the various outcomes including cancer diagnoses. Our secondary aims were to examine if targets were met, and to examine frequencies of undetected cancer. We collected data from 19,204 patients starting in a CPP, and 7895 patients diagnosed with cancer in 2018 in a region of Sweden. A state transition model was developed and used as analytical framework, and patients were mapped over time in the states of the model. Visualization of the patient-flow through the model illustrates speed of investigation, time to treatment, frequencies of detected and undetected cancer. Twelve CPPs out of 28 met the inclusion target, five met the time target. After suspicion of cancer rejected, 0.8% of patients were diagnosed with the primarily suspected cancer, 1.0% with another cancer. In patients not meeting the criteria for well-founded suspicion less than 3% were later diagnosed with cancer. The visualization of the patient flow into and through standardized cancer patient pathways illustrates investigation time, events occurring and outcomes. The use of standardized cancer patient pathways detects cancer efficiently.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据