Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Secret wait for cancer patients

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 July 2009
CANCER patients are still waiting as long as a year to get life-saving hospital treatment, despite ministers' claims waiting time targets are being met.
Scotland on Sunday has obtained official hospital by hospital data, unpublished by the Scottish Government, which shows that for certain types of cancer, patients in some units are waiting an average of 100 days before getting treated.

In the most extreme case, an Edinburgh patient with urological cancer – likely kidney, testicular or prostate – had to wait 375 days after first seeing the GP before getting treatment.

In May, Scottish ministers revealed that they had met a target to ensure all "urgent" cancer cases were seen within 62 days. However, the figure does not include the thousands of so-called "non-urgent" cases – classified as such because GPs have not flagged up cancer as a possible cause of their illness.

In total, some 27,000 patients are diagnosed with cancer in Scotland ever year. But only 9,500 of them were classified as "urgent" by GPs. Once the non-urgent cases are included, hospital by hospital analysis of all cancer cases shows that:

• Between January and April last year, head and neck cancer patients at Hairmyres hospital in East Kilbride waited an average of 112 days after GP referral before treatment.

• Average waits at Falkirk and District Royal for gastrointestinal cancer between April and June was 118 days.

• In the same quarter, patients at Stobhill in Glasgow suffering from urological cancer waited an average of 105 days.

The figures also show that lengthy waits are still common for cancers such as breast cancer, where speedy treatment is needed. Of 28 hospitals treating women with breast cancer in 2008's last quarter, 14 had an average wait of over 40 days.

The longest a woman had to wait for breast cancer treatment was 172 days, for a patient at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

Women with ovarian cancer also experienced long waits. A patient at Monklands District Hospital in Lanarkshire waited 218 days. Other lengthy waits included 190 at Dr Gray's Hospital, Elgin, and 163 at the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh.

Patients with lung cancer faced similar waits for treatment. At the Western General in Edinburgh, one patient had a wait of 242 days. Other long waits were recorded at the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh (223) and Raigmore (160).

Aberdeen Royal Infirmary registered some of the longest waits across all types of cancer. In 2008 these included 172 days for a breast cancer patient, 220 for a colorectal patient, 156 for a lung cancer patient, 332 for a gastrointestinal patient and 247 for a urology case.

Health boards last night insisted some delays were unavoidable because of the difficulties in diagnosing complex cancers quickly.

Jackie Sansbury, director of strategic planning at NHS Lothian, said: "Cancers can be complex and the symptoms sometimes point to an entirely different problem, meaning diagnosis takes longer. This is the main cause of the lengthy delays that sometimes occur."

Boards are now pledging to do more to ensure that cancer patients are diagnosed more quickly in future so that their treatment can begin earlier.

But a waiting time guarantee to ensure everyone is treated within 18 weeks of their first referral is not due until 2011 – this already exists in England.

The fresh revelations come after ministers declared they had met a waiting time target to ensure "urgent" cancer patients were all being treated within 62 days of GP referral.

Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said last night:

"I want all cancer patients to be diagnosed and start treatment as quickly as possible, and it is concerning when this does not happen."

She added: "Patients who are urgently referred should be treated within a target of two months, or 62 days. Great progress has been made towards this target and the latest figures show it has now been achieved for the first time. Patients seen by their GP and not judged to have obvious signs or symptoms of cancer are 'routinely' referred and they are likely to wait longer to see a specialist."

But Michael Summers, vice-chair of the Patients Association, said the figures were "scandalous". He added: "I'm very surprised by the length of delays. It is time that the Scottish Health Boards got their act together and made sure everyone is seen within weeks."

Sarah Woolnough, head of policy at Cancer Research UK, said: "Although we fully support the Government's pledge to improve cancer services across the country, there is still work to be done if these goals are to be met across cancer types for all patients."

Laura Grossart, of Breast Cancer Care Scotland, said: "These figures show some patients are still facing worrying delays in access to treatment. While we do not know how this may affect an individual clinical outcome, we do know that prolonged delays can cause untold anxiety for women.




Page 1 of 1

 
1

Roy Forrester,

12/07/2009 00:33:43
The NHS delay in providing adequate medical support to victims of cancer & other serious diseases has always been nothing short of horrific. The bureaucrats always manage to come up with smart-alecky answers but in fact it is nothing short of criminal, since many of the affected patients who would otherwise survive, die primarily due to the delay in treatment. Also these delays cost the taxpayers millions of extra pounds over time, money which could be spent on providing a more efficient system.
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

12/07/2009 00:37:55
Not very satisfactory reporting here.

As I read it, of a GP diagnoses cancer, or strong likelihood of cancer, the patient gets treated for cancer within two months. If the GP doesn't diagnose cancer, or strong likelihood of cancer, that doesn't apply. On the face if it that's OK, and there isn't much of a story. On the other hand if the delay after eventual diagnosis is more than 2 months, then there is a big problem. The problem is that I can't tell exactly whether this story is saying that.

Would the editor please phone Eddie Barnes and get him to clarify?
3

Brianwci,

12/07/2009 00:44:21
"In the most extreme case.......had to wait 375 days after first seeing the GP before getting treatment.

So naturally this single EXTREME case becomes the thrust of the story, while others wait around 100 days ON AVERAGE, i.e. some waited even LESS than 100 days.

But we wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good anti SNP story now would we?

I like that other headline: SNP ACCUSED of hissy fit blah blah blah.

I can just see the words "SNP Accused" permanently stationed on the editors cutting board just waiting on the latest nonsense to build another non anti SNP story around....

....keeps them off the streets I suppose.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/07/2009 00:47:06

A harrowing wait that adds to the anxiety, and worry, that anyone with cancer goes through.
I am shocked at this report, the waiting times are scandalous, how did we arrive at this situation?, have we more people being detected with cancer these days?, or is it poor management?

5

,

12/07/2009 01:01:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

12/07/2009 01:03:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

12/07/2009 01:06:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

12/07/2009 01:09:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Fifi la Bonbon,

12/07/2009 01:19:19
#3 - I didn't see anyone accusing anyone of anything here. You should strive to avoid unnecessary stress - it is bad for your health.
10

walter,

12/07/2009 01:25:10
This all come down to wording does it not and how figures are put over.
If the GP is flagging it as possible cancer and every patient is seen within 62 days then ministers are not telling lies.
If the GP does not flag it up as cancer and after 100 days the specialist does and the patient is seen within 62 days then the ministers are not telling lies.
How ever if even one patient is flagged up as possibly having cancer and is not seen within 62 days then the ministers are telling lies.
With out the figures of those who have been flagged up as having cancer and the length of time it takes to be seen then we do not know the truth.
11

,

12/07/2009 01:27:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/07/2009 01:51:19


~11&Various on thread,

If you yourself or had a loved one, who has to go through cancer, you would not be posting such moronic commenting.



13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/07/2009 02:19:44

At 16years old, and watching your Mother go through all the agony of Breast Cancer, and every aspect of Her Treatments, torment and eventual Death 10years later, puts a prospectus to this matter, it would be nice to respct this.

14

,

12/07/2009 04:10:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

donald,

glasgow 12/07/2009 06:17:27
Edie Barnes and co are as well calling this "Labour Weakly".
16

employedbynhs,

12/07/2009 09:14:53
Don't think this is entirely balanced and is missing a little bit of info

1) the target for those referred urgently with a suspicion of cancer currently stands at 95% - this has been met.
2) new targets are in the pipeline (announced by govt october 08)which will encompass those patients who gps do not suspect have cancer - ie they will be treated 31 days from diagnosis
3) no explanation here for the long waits - some are for highly specialised treatments only available at 1 or 2 centres, some are due to a series ofcomplicated diagnostic tests essential to get a full & proper diagnosis to inform the treatment plan
17

fife runner,

12/07/2009 10:00:17
with a high number of cancers caused by lifestyle is it fair to crticise the Government. Should we not do more to cut queues by adopting better lifestyles. Does not matter how much money one throws at the prob we cannot create more staff. I would like to be a consultant but educational wise I cannot. No amount of cash can change that
18

Navvy,

12/07/2009 10:39:11
The NHS is in a grave mess.
There will never be enough money to meet public expectations. Medicine is advancing rapidly and every new treatment gets a great deal of publicity and raises expectations.
When the NHS was formed to consolidate and improve upon the slow changes of the 1920s and 30s people were dying of TB, had rickets and there were no antibiotics. It was not too difficult to say that we could afford the original plan.
Peversely, at that time the general populace was healthier then then it is now due largely to war tiem rationing forcing people to eat a balanced if plain diet.
It is time to recognise the facts and make big changes.
First, people must become responsible for their own health by stopping or moderating their intake of nicotine, alcohol, fats and sugar by eating more fruit and vegitable. Much of our diet stems, fry ups and the like stems from the days when many worked physically be it at work or washing clothes by hand. Houses were poorly heated so more calories were burnt off and we walked more.
Disease arising from bad habits is tantamount to self inflcted injury and should be paid for by the individual and not by society at large.
It is a sad fact, just look at the waste left behind at eat all you can buffets, that people abuse the free at point of delivery NHS. Some deterrant is needed,doctors should not be social workers. We should pay for subscriptions and make more use of pharmacists for simple treatment.
There is a lot of truth in the adage if you take medicine you will be cured in a week and if you don't you will get better in 7 days.
Busy people seldom go to te doctor.

Finally, there is too much paperwork and to many "support" staff and not enough use made of technoledgy e.g. in some countries you get text messages to remind you of appointments and when you are nearing the head of the queue at outpatients - just key in the phone number to the computer and the system does the west
19

John H,

edinburgh 12/07/2009 10:43:05
20 What it really means is that you cannot believe a word that comes out of any politicians mouth. Simple as that.
You are deluding yourself if you truly believe that the SNP are any different. They are not and when the cap fits you just have to wear it.
Perhaps the SNP would be more thought of if people like yourself criticised them when there is a problem instead of crying foul every time they are exposed as falling short on the truth.
Fraudsters and liars is a true assessment of the peoples representatives in the Parliament regardless of party allegiance.
20

Fifi la Bonbon,

12/07/2009 11:00:30
Why are there so many drunks shouting on the internet this morning?
21

,

12/07/2009 11:23:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

livilion,

livingston 12/07/2009 11:23:38
22 John H
Like duh, stating the obvious or what, politicians tell lies? Hod me up.

Credit where its due though, the Labour party has elected Iain Gray to lead their MSP's in Holyrood, whenever he tells porkies its easy to tell, with his nervous eye tick.

For me, its got to be hats off to Jackie Baillie(remember her?) who is as brass necked a liar as I've ever seen perform on the popular media, up there with thon wee Iraqi general, she seems to revel in taking mendacity to the masses.

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
W.Churchill

I would suggest that it is best to keep politicians as near as possible to their electorate, just to remind them who it is they work for. That's why I'd prefer my parliamentarians to work in Edinburgh rather than London.
23

Dk,

Broxburn 12/07/2009 11:26:58
23---
It is Sunday morning
There needs to be a change in attitude from the top i.e. PM down to the bottom i.e. the cleaner in the hospital before this problem can be resolved.
Even we as patients need to change our expectations.
Dr's are not infallible and we must not expect them to be.
A little less expectation of perfection and a little more understanding of the problems
24

Micjonger,

12/07/2009 12:42:54
I understand PRIVATE patients can have their treatment started usually within SEVEN days.
25

employedbynhs,

12/07/2009 13:01:43
"I understand PRIVATE patients can have their treatment started usually within SEVEN days."

Nonsense - it may be true for some treatment types such as excising skin cancers,some surgical procedures but show me a private hospital that can arrange radical radiotherapy - which requires both planning and treatment appointemnts - or radical prostate surgery in 7 days and I'll happily apologise
26

,

12/07/2009 13:07:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Carlyhh,

USA 12/07/2009 14:26:40
What's most horrifying here is that so many commenters seem to think it's perfectly fine for a CANCER patient to wait as long as TWO MONTHS to begin treatment.

Stockholm syndrome? Captives of a socialist system that KILLS people....

If I or anyone in my family was diagnosed with cancer and was told we had to wait anywhere NEAR that long to begin treatment we would be outraged; such waits are the difference between life and death for many cancer patients.

Pathetic--even more so that our President wants to drag Americans into such a cruel system.
28

Sleighride,

Williamsburg 12/07/2009 14:33:48
HEALTH CARE IS EVERYONES BUSINESS AND SHOULD BE ONE OF THE PRIME TARGETS FOR POLITICIANS IF THEY WANT TO GET IN AGAIN. WE NEED TO GET THEM TO START SHUFFLING FINANCIAL PRIORITIES AND STOP FOCUSING ON SPENDING MONEY ON HOW TO STOP FRUIT FLIES, ETC.
29

Jimmy Le Pie,

12/07/2009 15:03:57
#31 Carlyhh

So how long does an unemployed American have to wait for cancer treatment????
30

Jimmy Le Pie,

12/07/2009 15:05:39
#31 Carlyhh,USA,

Afternoon, how long does an unemployed American have to wait for cancer treatment????
31

Sandi,

San Diego 12/07/2009 16:03:42
#33&34 Jimmy Le Pie,

Well, of course, an unemployed, or employed-but-not-earning-enough-money-to-buy-health-insurance American wouldn't be waiting for cancer treatment at all. They can't go to the doctor because if the doctor finds something wrong, then they'll NEVER get health insurance, even if they could ever afford it. So, this not-so-mythical person wouldn't even know they had cancer.

32

Sleighride,

Williamsburg 12/07/2009 16:35:29
#31....I HAD BREAST CANCER 10 YEARS AGO AND WAS COVERED BY MY HUSBANDS COMPANY GROUP INSURANCE AND OUR MEDICARE. BOTH RETIRED NOW AND HE IS STILL COVERED BY IT BUT NOW WE HAVE TO PAY MORE TO KEEP IT. I WAS SCARED STIFF AND MY INTERNIST REFERRED ME TO AN ONCOLOGIST AND A SURGEON. IT WAS IN A FEW DAYS I HAD THE OPERATION IN A RESEARCH HOSPITAL IN N.J. I AM A SURVIVOR BUT STILL GO TO THE ONCOLOGIST AND TAKE FEMARA (BY NOVARTIS)... CHECKUPS ARE 6 MOS AS THIS CAN COME BACK. LIFE IS A BEAST.
33

Sleighride,

Williamsburg 12/07/2009 16:42:37
#31.....JUST LET ME ADD, ON THE DARK SIDE....ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN WALK INTO THE EMMERGENCY ROOM AHEAD OF INSURANCE PAID PATRONS. HAVE YOU HEARD THAT ONE???
34

fritigern,

Inverness 12/07/2009 18:59:06
So, a target already reached in England is only due to be reached in Scotland in 2011. Long live devolution, though patients may live a shorter time.
35

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 12/07/2009 20:15:34
This whole debate is completely pointless! There is no persuasive medical evidence behind the 62 days to treatment target - it is purely a political issue.

The evidence about treatment outcomes varies with age, cancer type and stage at diagnosis.

Some cancers are already far advanced when they are detectable and outcomes are not affected much by when treatment occurs ie survival rates for some lung cancers have hardly changed in years and, for many people, getting treatment even the next day won't change the outcome much.

For others, like some prostate cancers, the disease can be so slow to develop that there is a real dicussion to be had as to whether the treatment is nastier than the cancer for some people. A few more weeks is neither here not there.

The real problem here is that there is so much media and political hype that patients now get scared that 62 days has some sort of significance for their individual outcomes and get fixated on dates rather than having an individual discussion about their particular situation and best interests.

Of course, the flip side to that is that health systems now try to get every one treated within the 62 days, even the ones that won't benefit much, which means the average wait for the really dangerous ones may be longer than it would be if doctors were left to decide priorities on clinical need and benefit rather than politically chosen targets.

That means that, counter-intuitively, overall outcomes could be hindered by strict targets compared to a purely clinical prioritisation process. Luckily, most doctors still use their judgement to fast track the ones that will really benefit from earlier treatment.

Get politics out of healthcare!
36

Sleighride,

Williamsburg 12/07/2009 22:12:50
#39...My dear Dr. Finlay, are you part of that old TV series? We are not debating but exchanging the shortcomings of our medical systems. I read all the messages on this board and I only hope someone is listening to these folks. Aberdeen is not exactly around the corner from Edinburgh so I don't know how up to date you are in this field. My Oncologist is not very happy about patients waiting 3 years for another mammo. He remarked...in the future here, if we go to this new system, the wait could be up to 4 or 5 years. So we wait....cheerio.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.