Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: exploring patient and carer perspectives on delay in seeking help.

PURPOSE: Compared to others, patients diagnosed with lung cancer following an emergency, unplanned admission to hospital (DFEA) have more advanced disease and poorer prognosis. Little is known about DFEA patients' beliefs about cancer and its symptoms or about their help-seeking behaviours prior to admission. METHODS: As part of a larger single-centre, prospective mixed-methods study conducted in one University hospital, we undertook qualitative interviews with patients DFEA and their carers to obtain their understanding of symptoms and experiences of trying to access healthcare services before admission to hospital. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Framework analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients and 10 carers plus 3 bereaved carers took part in interviews. Three patient/carer dyads were interviewed together. Participants spoke about their symptoms and why they did not seek help sooner. They described complex and nuanced experiences. Some (n = 12) had what they recalled as the wrong symptoms for lung cancer and attributed them either to a pre-existing condition or to ageing. In other cases (n = 9), patients or carers realised with hindsight that their symptoms were signs of lung cancer, but at the time had made other attributions to account for them. In some cases (n = 3), a sudden onset of symptoms was reported. Some GPs (n = 6) were also reported to have made incorrect attributions about cause. CONCLUSION: Late diagnosis meant that patients DFEA needed palliative support sooner after diagnosis than patients not DFEA. Professionals and lay people interpret health and illness experiences differently.

Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: Mixed methods study of the management, outcomes and needs and experiences of patients and carers.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, although 40% of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed following an emergency admission (EA), data is limited on their needs and experiences as they progress through diagnostic and treatment pathways. METHODS: Prospective data collection using medical records, questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Multivariate logistic regression explored associations between diagnosis following EA and aspects of interest. Questionnaire responses with 95% confidence intervals were compared with local and national datasets. A grounded theory approach identified patient and carer themes. RESULTS: Of 401 patients, 154 (38%) were diagnosed following EA; 37 patients and six carers completed questionnaires and 13 patients and 10 carers were interviewed. Compared to those diagnosed electively, EA patients adjusted results found no difference in treatment recommendation, treatment intent or place of death. Time to diagnosis, review, or treatment was 7-14 days quicker but fewer EA patients had a lung cancer nurse present at diagnosis (37% vs. 62%). Palliative care needs were high (median [IQR] 21 [13-25] distressing or bothersome symptoms/issues) and various information and support needs unmet. Interviews highlighted in particular, perceived delays in obtaining investigations/specialist referral and factors influencing success or failure of the cough campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation as an EA does not appear to confer any inherent disadvantage regarding progress through lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathways. However, given the frequent combination of advanced disease, poor performance status and prognosis, together with the high level of need and reported short-fall in care, we suggest that a specialist palliative care assessment is routinely offered.