Opportunities for Improvement
Recommendation
Participation in lung cancer screening trials and studies may enable Finland to determine whether screening is appropriate for
its population.
Rationale
Indicator 6: There is no evidence to show that Finland has participated in a lung cancer screening study or clinical trial. It was
noted by workshop participants that if targeted screening at primary care was more generally used and healthcare professionals
had a chance to ask for screening in case of suspected lung cancer, then lung cancer patients would be taken faster to specialised
care. Furthermore, workshop participants stated that increased awareness of lung cancer by the general public could improve
early detection.Recommendation
Attitudes towards lung cancer and people diagnosed with lung cancer could be improved in Finland. Better understanding of
available treatment options may help to change attitudes in the general public. Including lung cancer in Finland’s successful
National Respiratory Diseases Programme would offer an opportunity to change attitudes, increase early detection, improve
access to treatment and impact policy.Rationale
Indicator 14: The stigma of lung cancer was an important issue among workshop participants. Negative attitudes such as
blame for having a self-inflicted disease cause many Finns to avoid self-referral, psychosocial support and diagnostic testing.
Participants also noted the unconscious bias among some healthcare professionals towards treating lung cancer patients. The
Finnish Lung Cancer Association has a successful National Respiratory Diseases Programme which has focused on tuberculosis
and asthma in the past. Adding lung cancer to this programme may help to influence policy and lift the stigma of lung cancer in
Finland.Recommendation
Referral for diagnostic assessment for patients suspected of having lung cancer should be prioritised within a specified time
period as there is currently no mention of a rapid referral for diagnostic testing. Additionally, multidisciplinary teams are not
mentioned in the lung cancer guidelines.Rationale
Indicators 8 & 9: Providing a timeframe within which patients suspected of having lung cancer should receive testing is an
important milestone for delivery of care as well as having a timeframe for confirmed lung cancer patients to receive secondary or
tertiary care. Finland does not provide such timeframes, nor does it have dedicated fast-track referral processes in its lung cancer
guidelines. Lung cancer guidelines also do not mention the use of multidisciplinary teams to guide treatment plans. These teams
can ensure a holistic approach to care.Recommendation
The delivery of complex treatment for lung cancer, particularly surgery, may benefit from a centralisation of services.
Rationale
Indicators 10 to 13: Workshop participants observed that surgical treatment for lung cancer is currently conducted in many
different hospitals. Organising services, such as surgery, within a few centres of excellence may be a better use of limited resources
and offer the opportunity to improve outcomes.Opportunity 1
Opportunity 2
Opportunity 3
Opportunity 4