Medics urge end to cancer targets

NHS Scotland has a target of treating patients within 62 days of diagnosis

A dozen cancer specialists have called on the Scottish Government to drop its focus on waiting time targets for treatment.

The medics said the pressure to submit weekly progress reports on waiting times was adversely affecting the vital work of auditing patient treatment.

They warned that the 62-day target for cancer treatment does not reflect the ways cancers needed to be approached.

The Scottish Government said it was prepared to listen to the concerns.

The claims are featured in an editorial in the latest edition of the Scottish Medical Journal.

The editorial stated: "The term 'cancer' covers a wide range of conditions with variable presentations, variable rates of biological progression and varying complexities of diagnosis and treatment.

"There are those which may progress to patient detriment within this 62-day target and those that will not.

"For patients with squamous carcinoma of lung and a potential doubling time of less than two weeks, a 62-day target is clearly inappropriate."

Now is the time to refocus attention to quality of care and clinical audit rather than waiting times Scottish Medical Journal article

The clinicians conceded there was "much to celebrate" in the service developments that have stemmed from the waiting times initiative, and praised improvements in staffing, imaging facilities, diagnostic services and equipment.

But on waiting times, the article stated: "The initiative however does not provide the most appropriate measure of cancer care and has serious flaws particularly in the damage it has done to clinical audit of treatment and outcome.

"The pressures now on audit staff are excessive.

"These demands are clinically unnecessary and current timelines could be relaxed."

Currently, weekly progress reports on waiting times have to be submitted.

However, the medics said: "An interval of six to nine months would still allow timely monitoring and simultaneous collection of data for both clinical audit and waiting times, without unnecessary duplication of effort.

"Now is the time to refocus attention to quality of care and clinical audit rather than waiting times."

'Clinical concerns'

They argued that the effective clinical audit of cancer treatment and outcome was the most important way in which they could assess the quality of service.

Dr Ted Fitzsimons, lead specialist in blood cancers at Gartnavel Hospital, was one of the 12 who put their names to the article.

He said he hoped it would be "helpful".

"It's written by clinicians who are actively managing patients with cancer and these are our clinical concerns," he said.

While a Scottish Government spokesman said ministers were prepared to listen to concerns, he said what caused the most concern for patients was the wait for treatment.

The collecting of data "tells us where patients are within the system, and that's a reasonable thing to want to know", he added.