Objectives. The aim of the present study was to obtain views from general p
ractices about current and potential improvements to services for patients
with suspected lung, large bower, non-melanoma skin and breast cancer.
Method. A questionnaire study was carried out of 134 general practices with
in the Lothian Health Board boundary. Information was sought about referral
choices, communication, quality of care, liaison between community and hos
pital, health promotion, treatment outcomes and palliative care. Main outco
me measures were determinants of primary care referral behaviour and clinic
al investigation strategies, and perception of quality in secondary care an
d health promotion services.
Results. Seventy-nine general practices (59%) returned completed questionna
ires. One-fifth of practices maintained a cancer register, and 85% provide
patient information about cancer prevention. Initial management was disease
dependent. Most cases of suspected lung cancer, about half of suspected co
lorectal cancer cases and very few cases of suspected breast cancer were in
vestigated in primary care before referral to hospital. Hospital referral d
epended on knowledge of local services. A minority of practices wanted refe
rral guidelines. It was estimated that 92% of lung and breast cancer cases,
68% of colorectal cancers and 35% of skin cancers are seen within 4 weeks.
Breast cancer care was rated more highly than that for other cancers. One-
third ranked community nursing support as 'excellent' and 10-15% described
it as 'fair' or 'poor'; 77% describe palliative care as 'excellent' or 'goo
d'. Fifty-one percent believe that communication with hospital is 'excellen
t' or 'good'. Practices were sometimes unaware of the hospital's post-diagn
osis management plan; communication was often too slow and practices often
received 'poor' advice about symptom control. Eighty percent thought that h
ospital follow-up for breast, colorectal and lung cancer should be routine;
20% thought that it was indicated for non-melanomatous skin cancer.
Conclusions. Communication problems between primary and secondary sectors n
eed to be tackled innovatively and the perceived quality variation in servi
ces addressed-perhaps by developing local guidelines. Practices would welco
me further education about health promotion resources and cancer epidemiolo
gy.