Dataset Information

Variability of waiting times for the 4 most prevalent cancer types in Ontario: a retrospective population-based analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Longer waiting times in cancer care are associated with lower care quality and wait-related patient dissatisfaction. We analyzed the variability and median of waiting times from when a patient seeks care to first treatment for the 4 most prevalent cancer types in Ontario.

Methods

Using retrospective health administrative data, we identified patients with a new diagnosis of prostate, breast, lung or colorectal cancer in Ontario between 2002 and 2012. Treatment interventions were categorized as chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. We used regression analyses to calculate trends for the coefficient of variation, the Gini coefficient and the median waiting time for each cancer type-treatment type pair over the study period.

Results

During the study period, 95 501 new cases of prostate cancer, 89 244 breast cancer cases, 82 604 lung cancer cases and 80 761 colorectal cancer cases were registered. The coefficient of variation and the Gini coefficient of waiting times decreased for all cancer type-treatment type pairs (except for the Gini coefficient for breast cancer-radiotherapy) over the study period. However, both decreasing and increasing trends in median waiting times were observed across cancer type-treatment type pairs.

Interpretation

The variability of waiting time to first treatment for patients with prostate, breast, lung or colorectal cancer decreased between 2002 and 2012, which indicates improvements in equity in access to cancer care. This trend aligns with provincial efforts to improve access to and the efficiency of cancer care treatment in Ontario. The lack of consistent decreases in median waiting time highlights the need to identify improvement opportunities for cancer type-treatment type pairs with increasing median waiting times.

SUBMITTER: Rastpour A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6117805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading. CONCLUSIONS:Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPsychotherapy is recommended as a first-line treatment for the management of common psychiatric disorders. The objective of this study was to evaluate the availability of publicly funded psychotherapy provided by physicians in Ontario by describing primary care physicians (PCPs) and psychiatrists whose practices focus on psychotherapy and comparing them to PCPs and psychiatrists whose practices do not.MethodsThis was a population-based retrospective cohort study. We included all PCPs and psychiatrists in Ontario who submitted at least 1 billing claim to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan between Apr. 1, 2015, and Mar. 31, 2016, and categorized them as psychotherapists if at least 50% of their outpatient billings were related to the provision of psychotherapy. We measured practice characteristics such as total number of patients and new patients, and average visit frequency for 4 physician categories: PCP nonpsychotherapists, PCP psychotherapists, psychiatrist nonpsychotherapists and psychiatrist psychotherapists. We also measured access to care for people with urgent need for mental health services.ResultsOf 12 772 PCPs, 404 (3.2%) were PCP psychotherapists; of 2150 psychiatrists, 586 (27.3%) were psychotherapists. Primary care physician nonpsychotherapists had the highest number of patients and number of new patients, followed by psychiatrist nonpsychotherapists, PCP psychotherapists and psychiatrist psychotherapists. Primary care physician nonpsychotherapists had the lowest average annual number of visits per patient, whereas both types of psychotherapists had a much greater number of visits per patient. Primary care physician and psychiatrist nonpsychotherapists saw about 25% of patients with urgent needs for mental health services, whereas PCP and psychiatrist psychotherapists saw 1%-3% of these patients.InterpretationPhysicians who provide publicly funded psychotherapy in Ontario see a small number of patients, and they see few of those with urgent need for mental health services. Our findings suggest that improving access to psychotherapy will require the development of alternative strategies.

Project description:ObjectivesImmigrants are thought to be healthier than their native-born counterparts, but less is known about the health of refugees or forced migrants. Previous studies often equate refugee status with immigration status or country of birth (COB) and none have compared refugee to non-refugee immigrants from the same COB. Herein, we examined whether: (1) a refugee mother experiences greater odds of adverse maternal and perinatal health outcomes compared with a similar non-refugee mother from the same COB and (2) refugee and non-refugee immigrants differ from Canadian-born mothers for maternal and perinatal outcomes.DesignThis is a retrospective population-based database study. We implemented two cohort designs: (1) 1:1 matching of refugees to non-refugee immigrants on COB, year and age at arrival (±5 years) and (2) an unmatched design using all data.Setting and participantsRefugee immigrant mothers (n=34 233), non-refugee immigrant mothers (n=243 439) and Canadian-born mothers (n=615 394) eligible for universal healthcare insurance who had a hospital birth in Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014.Primary outcomesNumerous adverse maternal and perinatal health outcomes.ResultsRefugees differed from non-refugee immigrants most notably for HIV, with respective rates of 0.39% and 0.20% and an adjusted OR (AOR) of 1.82 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.79). Other elevated outcomes included caesarean section (AOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08) and moderate preterm birth (AOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.17). For the majority of outcomes, refugee and non-refugee immigrants experienced similar AORs when compared with Canadian-born mothers.ConclusionsRefugee status was associated with a few adverse maternal and perinatal health outcomes, but the associations were not strong except for HIV. The definition of refugee status used herein may not sensitively identify refugees at highest risk. Future research would benefit from further refining refugee status based on migration experiences.

Project description:BackgroundPeripregnancy emergency department use may be common, but data specific to health care systems like that in Canada are lacking. As prior research was limited to livebirths, omitting pregnancies ending in miscarriage or induced abortion, the current study quantified and characterized emergency department use among women in Ontario with a recognized pregnancy.MethodsThis retrospective population-based cohort study included all recognized pregnancies among Ontario residents aged 10-55 years with an estimated date of conception between Apr. 1, 2002, and Mar. 31, 2017. We defined peripregnancy emergency department use as any emergency department visit during pregnancy or within 42 days after pregnancy. We used modified Poisson regression with a robust error variance to generate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcome of any peripregnancy emergency department use in association with maternal age, parity, residential income quintile, location of residence, immigrant status, antenatal care provider and number of comorbidities within 120 days before the clinical start of the pregnancy (expressed as total number of Aggregated Diagnosis Groups [ADGs] obtained with the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group System). All RRs, except for number of comorbidities, were further adjusted for number of ADGs.ResultsPeripregnancy emergency department use occurred in 1 075 991 (39.4%) of 2 728 236 recognized pregnancies, including 35.8% of livebirths, 47.3% of stillbirths, 73.7% of miscarriages and 84.8% of threatened abortions. A peripregnancy emergency department visit was more likely among women who were less than 25 years of age (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.16-1.17), were nulliparous (adjusted RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.13-1.13), resided in the lowest income quintile area (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.16) or in a rural area (adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.50-1.51), were Canadian-born (adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.22-1.23), were not seen by an obstetrician (adjusted RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.54-1.80) or had a greater number of ADGs. Emergency department use peaked in the first trimester and in the first week postpartum. Compared to women residing in urban areas, those residing in rural areas had an odds ratio (OR) of 3.44 (95% CI 3.39-3.49) for 3 or more emergency department visits. Women with 3-4 (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.97-2.01), 5-6 (OR 3.55, 95% CI 3.49-3.61), or 7 or more (OR 7.59, 95% CI 7.39-7.78) prepregnancy comorbidities were more likely to have 3 or more peripregnancy emergency department visits than were those with 2 or fewer comorbidities.InterpretationPeripregnancy emergency department use occurred in nearly 40% of pregnancies, notably in the first trimester and early in the postpartum period. Efforts are needed to streamline rapid access to ambulatory obstetric care during these peak periods, when women are susceptible to miscarriage or a complication after a livebirth.

Project description:This population-based study analyzes hip fracture and osteoporosis treatment rates among older adults, stratified by place of residence prior to fracture. Hip fracture rates were higher among older adults living in the community and discharged to long-term care (LTC) after fracture, compared to LTC residents and older adults living in the community. Only 23% of LTC residents at high fracture risk received osteoporosis treatment.PurposeThis population-based study examines hip fracture rate and osteoporosis management among long-term care (LTC) residents > 65 years of age compared to community-dwelling older adults at the time of fracture and admitted to LTC after fracture, in Ontario, Canada.MethodsHealthcare utilization and administrative databases were linked using unique, encoded identifiers from the ICES Data Repository to estimate hip fractures (identified using the Public Health Agency of Canada algorithm and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes) and osteoporosis management (pharmacotherapy) among adults > 66 years from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018. Sex-specific and age-standardized rates were compared by pre-fracture residency and discharge location (i.e., LTC to LTC, community to LTC, or community to community). Fracture risk was determined using the Fracture Risk Scale (FRS).ResultsAt baseline (2014/15), the overall age-standardized hip fracture rate among LTC residents was 223 per 10,000 person-years (173 per 10,000 females and 157 per 10,000 males), 509 per 10,000 person-years (468 per 10,000 females and 320 per 10,000 males) among the community to LTC cohort, and 31.5 per 10,000 person-years (43.1 per 10,000 females and 25.6 per 10,000 males). During the 5-year observation period, the overall annual average percent change (APC) for hip fracture increased significantly in LTC (AAPC = + 8.6 (95% CI 5.0 to 12.3; p = 0.004) compared to the community to LTC group (AAPC = + 2.5 (95% CI - 3.0 to 8.2; p = 0.248)) and the community-to-community cohort (AAPC - 3.8 (95% CI - 6.7 to - 0.7; p = 030)). However, hip fracture rate remained higher in the community to LTC group over the study period. There were 33,594 LTC residents identified as high risk of fracture (FRS score 4 +), of which 7777 were on treatment (23.3%).ConclusionOverall, hip fracture rates have increased in LTC and among community-dwelling adults admitted to LTC after fracture. However, hip fracture rates among community-dwelling adults have decreased over time. A non-significant increase in osteoporosis treatment rates was observed among LTC residents at high risk of fracture (FRS4 +). Residents in LTC are at very high risk for fracture and require individualized based on goals of care and life expectancy.