How might healthcare systems influence speed of cancer diagnosis: a narrative review.

Striking differences exist in outcomes for cancer between developed countries with comparable healthcare systems. We compare the healthcare systems of 3 countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), 3 UK jurisdictions (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario) and 2 Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria) using a framework which assesses the possible contribution of primary care systems to a range of health outcomes, drawing on key characteristics influencing population health. For many of the characteristics we investigated there are no significant differences between those countries with poorer cancer outcomes (England and Denmark) and the rest.

Development of a survey instrument to investigate the primary care factors related to differences in cancer diagnosis between international jurisdictions.

Background: Survival rates following a diagnosis of cancer vary between countries. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), a collaboration between six countries with primary care led health services, was set up in 2009 to investigate the causes of these differences. Module 3 of this collaboration hypothesised that an association exists between the readiness of primary care physicians (PCP) to investigate for cancer - the 'threshold' risk level at which they investigate or refer to a specialist for consideration of possible cancer - and survival for that cancer (lung, colorectal and ovarian).

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: an international collaboration to inform cancer policy in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) was initiated by the Department of Health in England to study international variation in cancer survival, and to inform policy to improve cancer survival. It is a research collaboration between twelve jurisdictions in six countries: Australia (New South Wales, Victoria), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario), Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales). Leadership is provided by policymakers, with academics, clinicians and cancer registries forming an international network to conduct the research.

Targets and prioritization: the case of cancer in the English NHS.

From 1999 onwards, patients judged by their general practitioners (GPs) to require urgent access to care for suspected cancer have been referred under the so-called two-week wait rule, or fast track, which guaranteed that they would be seen in a hospital clinic within that period. The two-week wait was introduced in the belief that England's relatively poor cancer outcomes were due, at least in part, to delays in accessing care. This paper assesses the impact of the two-week wait against a number of criteria.

The policy and practice of measuring patient experience.

The NHS outcomes framework makes clear that the provision of a 'good experience' of care for patients, alongside clinical effectiveness and safety, is a central goal for the NHS. Developing a comprehensive strategy for measuring patient experience requires a decision about what should be measured and how. This article discusses current policy direction and its implications for practice, and sets out the fundamentals of measuring patient experience.