Development and outcomes of a virtual triage pathway for cancer diagnosis in vague symptom patients

ABSTRACT

Background: At the Rapid Access Diagnostic Unit at Guy's Hospital London, we review patients with vague symptoms that are concerning for malignancy. As part of our response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a virtual triage pathway with the aim to reduce face-to-face appointments and prioritise resources towards patients with an underlying cancer diagnosis. Methods: Patients were triaged by clinicians based on a telephone consultation with the patient and history and blood tests provided in the referral. Those triaged as high risk were either directly booked for investigation ("straight-to-test") or booked for a face-to-face consultation for further history and examination. Low risk patients were either put on a watch-and-wait pathway with a telephone follow-up in 3-4 weeks or discharged back to the GP with a robust plan on symptom management. The patient outcomes were tracked and compared to the outcomes from the face-to-face assessment service used prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Dec 2016-Feb 2020). Patients triaged as low risk and discharged were tracked to monitor for any subsequent cancer diagnoses. Results: There were 804 referrals triaged between March 2020-January 2021. 75% were triaged to a face-to-face assessment and 18% triaged straight-to-test. 4% were placed on the watch-and-wait pathway and 3% were returned to the GP with advice. In those triaged as high risk, 8.2% were diagnosed with cancer, 54% were diagnosed with a serious-benign condition and 38% with a non-serious or no condition. In the patients triaged as low risk and placed on the watch-and-wait pathway, 14% were brought in for a face-to-face assessment based on their follow-up telephone assessment. None of the patients on the watch-and-wait pathway were found to have a cancer diagnosis, 11% were diagnosed with a seriousbenign condition, and 89% were diagnosed with a non-serious or no condition. There was an overall cancer diagnosis rate of 7.6% compared with a pre-COVID-19 diagnosis rate of 6.6%. Conclusions: The virtual triage pathway effectively risk-assessed patients, with those triaged as high risk having an 8.2% cancer diagnosis rate compared to a 0% cancer diagnosis rate in those triaged as low risk. Furthermore, the virtual triage service had a higher cancer diagnosis rate compared to the pre-COVID-19 face-to-face assessment service. Therefore the virtual triage service provides an efficient pathway for cancer diagnosis in patients presenting with vague symptoms, reducing the number of face-to-face appointments and supporting management of low risk patients in the community.