Local purchasing of health services is hindering improvements in cancer services
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Lack of experience and expertise in health services at a local level is hindering the purchase of cancer drugs, equipment, and services in the NHS in England, says a parliamentary report published this week.
The report, The Future of Cancer Services in England, found that recent government changes in the way that cancer services are funded and organised—with a shift to purchasing by primary care trusts—were hindering progress in reducing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and in eliminating variations in cancer treatment in different areas, so called postcode prescribing.
The report, published by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer (a cross party group of politicians) at its annual Britain Against Cancer conference this week, said that GPs lacked specialist knowledge to identify and appropriately refer patients with cancer.
The report is based on a parliamentary inquiry into the future of cancer services in England at which representatives of more than 50 cancer networks, primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, the Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and patient groups gave evidence during this summer. Many witnesses reported that primary care trusts lacked experience—and in many cases expertise—in commissioning cancer services. The inquiry, therefore, concluded that primary care trusts were not well placed to spend cancer funding and that the money should go directly to the country抯 34 cancer networks.
Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, said: 揟he inquiry has exposed a serious problem. The government rightly says that cancer is a national priority, yet the system that抯 expected to deliver it is too fragmented. PCTs are struggling to cope and lack experience in commissioning cancer services. The budget for cancer services must therefore go directly to cancer networks to allow them to plan for sustained improvements in cancer care.?/p>
Joanne Rule, chief executive of the cancer information charity CancerBACUP, which provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, noted: 揟his report provides solutions to problems of inequality of access and funding identified by the government earlier this year. Cancer services need specialist commissioning. If not, access to cancer drugs, equipment, and services will continue to vary widely from one part of the country to another.?/p>
The inquiry found that some GPs had difficulty in identifying which patients needed urgent referral to cancer services. As a result, many cancer patients waited too long for diagnosis and treatment. The report recommended that primary care trusts should set up an ongoing cancer education programmes for GPs and should monitor urgent and non-urgent referrals. It also suggested that data should be collected at both national and local levels on the prescribing of cancer treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and that this information should be accessible by clinicians and members of the public.(London Susan Mayor)
The report, The Future of Cancer Services in England, found that recent government changes in the way that cancer services are funded and organised—with a shift to purchasing by primary care trusts—were hindering progress in reducing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and in eliminating variations in cancer treatment in different areas, so called postcode prescribing.
The report, published by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer (a cross party group of politicians) at its annual Britain Against Cancer conference this week, said that GPs lacked specialist knowledge to identify and appropriately refer patients with cancer.
The report is based on a parliamentary inquiry into the future of cancer services in England at which representatives of more than 50 cancer networks, primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, the Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and patient groups gave evidence during this summer. Many witnesses reported that primary care trusts lacked experience—and in many cases expertise—in commissioning cancer services. The inquiry, therefore, concluded that primary care trusts were not well placed to spend cancer funding and that the money should go directly to the country抯 34 cancer networks.
Dr Ian Gibson, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, said: 揟he inquiry has exposed a serious problem. The government rightly says that cancer is a national priority, yet the system that抯 expected to deliver it is too fragmented. PCTs are struggling to cope and lack experience in commissioning cancer services. The budget for cancer services must therefore go directly to cancer networks to allow them to plan for sustained improvements in cancer care.?/p>
Joanne Rule, chief executive of the cancer information charity CancerBACUP, which provides the secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, noted: 揟his report provides solutions to problems of inequality of access and funding identified by the government earlier this year. Cancer services need specialist commissioning. If not, access to cancer drugs, equipment, and services will continue to vary widely from one part of the country to another.?/p>
The inquiry found that some GPs had difficulty in identifying which patients needed urgent referral to cancer services. As a result, many cancer patients waited too long for diagnosis and treatment. The report recommended that primary care trusts should set up an ongoing cancer education programmes for GPs and should monitor urgent and non-urgent referrals. It also suggested that data should be collected at both national and local levels on the prescribing of cancer treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and that this information should be accessible by clinicians and members of the public.(London Susan Mayor)