English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  The Cancer Services profiles report indicators of cancer diagnostic activity for all English general practices. A recent study reported that several indicators were dominated by chance, with some practice-level variation explained by the practice’s age-sex profile.    Aim  To assess the variation explained by patient-level case-mix and whether the practice age-sex profile adequately adjusts for this.    Method  Five indicators from Cancer Waiting Times (2016/17, 6050 practices) or Routes to Diagnosis (2015, 6355 practices) data were considered: Two Week Wait (TWW) conversion and detection rates, and emergency-, referred- and other-diagnosis proportions. Mixed-effect logistic regression adjusted for patient-level case-mix, using national cancer registration data on age, sex, deprivation, referral/cancer-type and, where possible, ethnicity and stage at diagnosis, with and without practice-level age-sex profile.    Results  Chance explained 60–85% of practice-level variation, with the combination of chance and patient-level case-mix explaining 75% (TWW conversion rate) to 89% (emergency diagnosis proportion). For TWW conversion rate, there was considerable overlap in the variance explained by practice- and patient-level factors. For the other indicators, practice- or patient-level factors were largely independent.    Conclusion  Chance is not synonymous with case-mix and is the dominant source of variation in single-year practice indicators. Therefore, we recommend the continued aggregation of data over multiple years. For most studied indicators, adjustment for the age-sex profile of the whole practice population is not a substitute for case-mix of individual cancer patients and so should not be used. Patient-level case-mix adjustment leads to a modest reordering of practices and so may not be a priority.

Investigating the impact of case-mix on general practice cancer diagnostic outcome indicators