Indicator Development Programme - Cancer consultation report - IND 2020-82 and IND 2020-83

Aug 31, 2026

Upload by Dozel

Cancer indicator development consultation report covering two proposed primary-care based indicators within the Indicator Development Programme. It details the consultation period (25 June–15 July 2020) and the indicator advisory committee meeting date (04 August 2020). IND 2020-82 evaluates whether patients discussed primary care support within three months of diagnosis, while IND 2020-83 focuses on conducting a structured cancer care review within 12 months of diagnosis. Stakeholder feedback assesses expected benefits, implementation requirements, coding outputs, remote delivery, and concerns about timing alignment, patient experience, and GP capacity.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPresentations

FormatDOCX

Pages104

Reading Time36 min

AccessFree to download

Summary of indicators included in the consultation

IND 2020-82: Cancer: support available from primary care

IND 2020-83 Cancer: 12 month review

Appendix A: Consultation comments

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Consultation report Indicator area: Cancer Consultation period: 25 June – 15 July 2020 Date of Indicator Advisory Committee meeting: 04 August 2020 Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46152148" Summary of indicators included in the consultation PAGEREF _Toc46152148 \h 2 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46152149" IND 2020-82: Cancer: support available from primary care PAGEREF _Toc46152149 \h 3 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46152150" IND 2020-83 Cancer: 12 month review PAGEREF _Toc46152150 \h 5 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46152151" Appendix A: Consultation comments PAGEREF _Toc46152151 \h 9 Summary of indicators included in the consultation IND 2020-82: Cancer: support available from primary care The percentage of patients with cancer, diagnosed within the preceding 12 months, who have had a discussion within 3 months of diagnosis about the support available from primary care. Rationale Current QOF indicator CAN003 which focuses on review at 6 months has high levels of personalised care adjustment reporting (formerly known as exception reporting). Anecdotal feedback on the current indicator suggests that the timing of the review 6 months post diagnosis is inappropriate for many patients especially in relation to understanding the support available from primary care. This indicator aims to encourage GP practices to proactively make patients aware of the support available from their GP and wider practice team soon after their diagnosis and how this can complement the care they are receiving in secondary care. The intention is to facilitate early and supportive conversations and ensure patients are aware of what help is available. Summary of consultation comments Stakeholders generally welcomed the inclusion of this indicator, commenting that it will have a positive impact on health outcomes, raise patient awareness of what support is available from primary care and increase understanding of care in general. They highlighted that: There is potential to link with holistic needs assessments undertaken in secondary care, existing support roles and support transitions of care Discussions could be effectively done remotely. Meaningful coding and having a defined output such as a care plan would help prevent tick-box approaches. This is being done effectively already in some areas. Stakeholders raised issues around implementation such as GPs not receiving timely information on diagnosis, a need to define what offers of support should be made and to specify how the contact should take place. Some stakeholders did raise that patients could be overwhelmed by secondary care appointments and may not welcome an additional appointment at this time, and that some patients may not be able to take part in discussions by phone/digital means. They also highlighted barriers in practice capacity. Consultation question: Is 3 months an appropriate timeframe to discuss with the patient the support available from primary care? Many stakeholders thought the timeframe was appropriate and highlighted that: The discussion should be offered periodically if not initially accepted. Where diagnosis information is slow in getting to GPs the timescale would ensure discussion within a meaningful timeframe. It would give patients knowledge of support available at the beginning of treatment. It would give GPs enough time to prepare for the discussion. Some stakeholders did not think the timeframe was appropriate and highlighted that: It would not align with health needs assessment hospital pathways. It would be difficult to arrange a face to face appointment in this time. The window to have the discussion should be wider to give patients time to understand their diagnosis and secondary care appointments. 6 months may be more appropriate. IND 2020-83 Cancer: 12 month review The percentage of patients with cancer, diagnosed within the preceding 24 months, who have a pa

FAQs

What is the purpose of IND 2020-82?

IND 2020-82 measures the proportion of patients diagnosed within the preceding 12 months who have a discussion within 3 months about the support available from primary care.

How does IND 2020-83 differ from IND 2020-82?

IND 2020-83 focuses on a patient Cancer Care Review using a structured template within 12 months of diagnosis, with discussion that can include broader follow-up needs.

What implementation issues did stakeholders raise during the consultation?

Stakeholders highlighted concerns such as timely information transfer to GPs after diagnosis, defining which support offers should be made and how contact should occur, potential patient overwhelm, remote communication limitations, and practice capacity barriers.

Aug 31, 2026

Upload by Dozel