Skip to main content

Why is FIT important for people with lower gastrointestinal symptoms?

If you consult your doctor about bowel symptoms, they may speak about getting FIT. What is FIT? In this context, it is nothing to do with exercise or how far you can run. FIT stands for faecal immunochemical test, which aims to detect blood in your faeces. The test is highly sensitive. 

People with lower bowel symptoms such as a change in their bowel habits will understandably be concerned about the possibility of bowel cancer. The risk of colorectal cancer in people with a negative FIT, a normal examination and normal full blood count is <0.1%. This is lower than the general population risk of colorectal cancer. So this combination of clinical findings allows your doctor to conclude that you are very unlikely to have bowel cancer. However, many people with lower GI symptoms still do not undergo FIT before referral to a specialist.

Patients with a FIT of fHb <10μg Hb/g, a normal full blood count, and no ongoing clinical concerns do not need to be referred on a lower GI urgent cancer pathway but can be managed in primary care or referred on an alternative pathway with suitable safety netting if symptoms change. FIT can improve patient management. By fully implementing the use of FIT in people with lower GI symptoms in primary care, we can spare patients unnecessary colonoscopies, releasing capacity to ensure the most urgent symptomatic patients are seen more quickly in specialist clinics.

There are some patients for whom FIT is not suitable, such as those with iron deficiency anaemia, a rectal or anal mass, or anal ulceration. See below for further guidance on the use of FIT in people with lower GI symptoms.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/B2005_i_Using-faecal-immunochemical-testing-lower-gastrointestinal-pathway_primary-care-letter.pdf 

https://www.bsg.org.uk/clinical-resource/faecal-immunochemical-testing-fit-in-patients-with-signs-or-symptoms-of-suspected-colorectal-cancer-crc-a-joint-guideline-from-the-acpgbi-and-the-bsg/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more