Blog
Enhancing Public Accountability: Key Elements of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025
Kirsty Cook
The government has announced plans to scrap many current cancer targets - including the ‘two week wait’ when being referred for suspected cancer - in favour of a ‘Faster Diagnosis Standard’. As a lawyer specialising in cases relating to delayed diagnosis of cancer, I am particularly interested in these changes and what impact they might have on legal claims.
As it stands, if a GP makes an ‘urgent’ referral, the patient should be seen by a consultant within 14 days, commonly known as the ‘two-week wait’ cancer pathway. Ninety three percent of patients are supposed to be seen within this period but the target has not been met since 2018.
Where a patient presents with potential cancer symptoms but a GP fails to make an urgent referral, there can, in some instances, be a claim for clinical negligence - where the patient then suffers a delay in diagnosis and a poorer prognosis or outcome. Claims can also arise where, after any referral, there are problems with diagnosis and treatment.
Under the new Faster Diagnosis Standard, patients who are urgently referred should be diagnosed, or have cancer ruled out, within 28 days. It is suggested that this will improve patient care since, under the two week wait, a person may see a specialist Consultant within 14 days but spend several more weeks on appointments and tests before getting an outcome. The two week wait sets no expectation as to when a patient should receive test results or have a confirmed diagnosis. The target was not helpful if it meant that Consultants were being asked to meet with patients who had no firm diagnosis and no test results to interpret.
Further new targets being introduced require that a patient should begin treatment within 62 days of referral and within 31 days of the decision to treat. The aim is for patients to be diagnosed faster, given that early diagnosis is the biggest factor in surviving cancer.
The simplification of targets has been welcomed by some specialists, including Professor Sir Stephen Powis, national NHS medical director, who points out that the NHS ‘can be even more focused on outcomes for patients, rather than just appointment times’.
However, there is a body of opinion that believes these targets are still inadequate. The new aim is for 75 percent of patients to be diagnosed or cleared within 28 days. But oncologist and medico-legal expert Professor Pat Price considers that the target needs to be much higher, at around 95 percent. She has also expressed concerns that the government is ‘fiddling around with targets’ in the middle of a crisis and says that the ‘clear and simple truth is that we are not investing enough in cancer treatment capacity and getting the whole cancer pathway working’.
In an interview with Channel 4 News on 14 August, oncologist Professor Karol Sikora agreed that the changing of targets was an admission of failure. He stated that ‘as of last week, the data for the two-week wait is really quite appalling’ and went on to say that under such conditions patients in America would be likely to sue.
Professor Sikora explained that what is needed to improve the current situation in cancer care is principally more people and more equipment.
Critical staff shortages is a topic we at Kingsley Napley have previously written about. One of the problems is that certain specialities can command greater salaries abroad. While Professor Sikora accepted that a backlog of patients from the pandemic was an issue, he considered that cancer waiting times were in fact slowing up before this.
Another oncologist, Professor Sebag-Montefiore highlights the importance of training the right people and ‘expanding the training pipeline’. However, he thinks there is some light at the end of the tunnel for cancer services given the ongoing improvements in research, including artificial intelligence for radiation planning, something James Bell talked about in his recent blog.
It seems that although, as noted by Professor Sikora, changing the targets may allow the government to re-set the bottom line, the realities of our ailing cancer services unfortunately remain. Clearly, more needs to be done.
If you are concerned about the care you or a family member have received surrounding cancer, our specialist team of lawyers are here to help. You can read more about our expertise on our cancer pages.
further information
If you have any questions, please contact James Bell in our Medical Negligence and Personal Injury team.
about the author
James Bell is the head of our Medical Negligence and Personal Injury practice and joined the firm in 2023 from Hodge, Jones & Allen. He has undertaken medical negligence cases for over 20 years.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
You may also be interested in:
Blog
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
Waqar Shah
Blog
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
Dale Gibbons
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print