Prioritising regions and pathways to improve

Summary

This page shows the percentages of patients within waiting times standards and the percentages of all breaches accounted for, by each pathway in each Cancer Alliance. It highlights regions and pathways to improve.

Time period of data: October 2023 to June 2024

28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard

Figure 1: 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard - Percentage of patients within the standard plotted against the percentage of all breaches, by Cancer Alliance, cancer type, and referral group

Reducing inequalities

Figure 1 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance Referral group Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
Greater Manchester National screening programme Lower GI 27.99 2508 702 1806 0.30 0.30
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Other 29.79 94 28 66 0.01 0.31
Thames Valley National screening programme Lower GI 30.38 609 185 424 0.07 0.38
Thames Valley Urgent suspected cancer Non-specific symptoms 31.71 1971 625 1346 0.22 0.60
Lancashire and South Cumbria National screening programme Lower GI 32.53 2112 687 1425 0.24 0.84
Peninsula National screening programme Lower GI 33.17 1845 612 1233 0.20 1.05
Cheshire and Merseyside National screening programme Gynaecological 34.42 523 180 343 0.06 1.10
North East London Urgent suspected cancer Other 36.63 202 74 128 0.02 1.12
East Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Haematological (excluding acute leukaemia) 37.67 1075 405 670 0.11 1.24
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire National screening programme Lower GI 39.23 1922 754 1168 0.19 1.43
Table 1: 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in waiting times.

However, Table 1 shows that these pathways account for only a small percentage of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 1.43%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 1).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance Referral group Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 55.50 41724 23158 18566 3.08 3.08
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Skin 77.22 67624 52216 15408 2.56 5.64
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 61.32 35192 21580 13612 2.26 7.90
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 59.58 29361 17493 11868 1.97 9.87
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Urological (excluding testicular) 52.32 24416 12775 11641 1.93 11.80
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Urological (excluding testicular) 48.42 20391 9873 10518 1.75 13.55
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 62.38 23061 14385 8676 1.44 14.99
Cheshire and Merseyside Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 52.96 18186 9632 8554 1.42 16.41
Surrey and Sussex Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 67.87 24706 16769 7937 1.32 17.73
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 60.33 19576 11811 7765 1.29 19.02
Table 2: 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 10 pathways account for 19.02% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.

31-day treatment standard

Figure 2: 31-day treatment standard - Percentage of patients within standard plotted against the percentage of all breaches, by Cancer Alliance, cancer type, and first or subsequent treatment

Reducing inequalities

Figure 2 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance First or subsequent treatment Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 50.46 1094 552 542 1.16 1.16
Lancashire and South Cumbria Subsequent treatment Skin 64.12 577 370 207 0.44 1.61
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw First treatment Urological - other 64.45 481 310 171 0.37 1.98
Thames Valley First treatment Gynaecological 66.04 321 212 109 0.23 2.21
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Subsequent treatment Skin 66.12 608 402 206 0.44 2.65
North Central London Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 67.55 1239 837 402 0.86 3.52
South East London Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 69.96 912 638 274 0.59 4.11
East Midlands First treatment Urological - other 70.68 1139 805 334 0.72 4.83
Humber and North Yorkshire Subsequent treatment Skin 70.96 513 364 149 0.32 5.15
Humber and North Yorkshire Subsequent treatment Breast 71.05 1672 1188 484 1.04 6.19
Humber and North Yorkshire Subsequent treatment Other 71.21 132 94 38 0.08 6.27
East Midlands First treatment Gynaecological 71.30 986 703 283 0.61 6.88
West Midlands Subsequent treatment Skin 71.75 2021 1450 571 1.23 8.10
Table 3: 31-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in cancer waiting times.

However, Table 3 shows that these pathways account for only a small proportion of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 8.1%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 2).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance First or subsequent treatment Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
East of England First treatment Skin 82.33 5117 4213 904 1.94 1.94
East Midlands Subsequent treatment Breast 86.03 5418 4661 757 1.63 3.57
West Midlands First treatment Skin 83.00 4436 3682 754 1.62 5.19
East of England Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 83.07 4041 3357 684 1.47 6.66
Surrey and Sussex First treatment Skin 84.77 4425 3751 674 1.45 8.11
West Midlands Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 82.02 3470 2846 624 1.34 9.45
East of England Subsequent treatment Breast 92.06 7746 7131 615 1.32 10.77
Wessex Subsequent treatment Breast 84.53 3826 3234 592 1.27 12.05
West Midlands Subsequent treatment Skin 71.75 2021 1450 571 1.23 13.27
East Midlands First treatment Skin 86.24 4019 3466 553 1.19 14.46
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 50.46 1094 552 542 1.16 15.63
Northern Subsequent treatment Urological - prostate 77.86 2322 1808 514 1.10 16.73
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire First treatment Skin 85.60 3515 3009 506 1.09 17.82
Table 4: 31-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 13 pathways account for 17.82% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.

62-day treatment standard

Figure 3: 62-day treatment standard - Percentage of patients within standard plotted against the percentage of all breaches, by Cancer Alliance, cancer type, and referral group

Reducing inequalities

Figure 3 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance Referral group Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
South East London Screening Lower GI 15.91 44.0 7.0 37.0 0.05 0.05
Thames Valley Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 20.47 190.5 39.0 151.5 0.19 0.24
South East London Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 21.24 153.0 32.5 120.5 0.15 0.39
Peninsula Screening Lower GI 23.18 151.0 35.0 116.0 0.15 0.54
East Midlands Screening Lower GI 23.23 325.0 75.5 249.5 0.31 0.85
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 24.25 200.0 48.5 151.5 0.19 1.04
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire Screening Lower GI 25.25 198.0 50.0 148.0 0.19 1.23
Cheshire and Merseyside Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 26.76 327.0 87.5 239.5 0.30 1.53
North Central London Urgent suspected cancer Breast 26.98 422.5 114.0 308.5 0.39 1.92
East Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 27.21 615.5 167.5 448.0 0.57 2.49
Humber and North Yorkshire Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 28.28 194.5 55.0 139.5 0.18 2.66
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 29.25 3321.0 971.5 2349.5 2.97 5.63
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Head & neck 29.33 578.0 169.5 408.5 0.52 6.14
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Gynaecological 29.70 710.5 211.0 499.5 0.63 6.78
Greater Manchester Screening Lower GI 31.23 142.5 44.5 98.0 0.12 6.90
Table 5: 62-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in cancer waiting times.

However, Table 5 shows that these pathways account for only a small proportion of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 6.9%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 3).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance Referral group Cancer type Percent within standard (%) Total number of patients Total number within standard Total number of breaches Percent of all breaches (%) Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 29.25 3321.0 971.5 2349.5 2.97 2.97
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 49.74 4163.0 2070.5 2092.5 2.64 5.61
East Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 45.95 2565.0 1178.5 1386.5 1.75 7.36
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 41.46 2034.5 843.5 1191.0 1.50 8.86
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 38.83 1703.5 661.5 1042.0 1.32 10.18
Northern Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 52.00 2071.0 1077.0 994.0 1.25 11.43
Wessex Urgent suspected cancer Urological - prostate 41.61 1681.0 699.5 981.5 1.24 12.67
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Breast 55.91 2067.5 1156.0 911.5 1.15 13.82
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Skin 75.37 3583.5 2701.0 882.5 1.11 14.94
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 43.68 1458.5 637.0 821.5 1.04 15.97
East Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Lower GI 32.69 1174.5 384.0 790.5 1.00 16.97
East of England Urgent suspected cancer Breast 69.81 2565.0 1790.5 774.5 0.98 17.95
West Midlands Consultant upgrade Lung 60.22 1795.0 1081.0 714.0 0.90 18.85
East Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Breast 59.31 1676.0 994.0 682.0 0.86 19.71
West Midlands Urgent suspected cancer Skin 78.18 2992.5 2339.5 653.0 0.82 20.53
Table 6: 62-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 15 pathways account for 20.53% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.