Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners

Applying Implementation Science to Identify Primary Care Providers' Enablers and Barriers to Using Survivorship Care Plans

Primary care providers (PCPs) have been given the responsibility of managing the follow-up care of low-risk cancer survivors after they are discharged from the oncology center. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) were developed to facilitate this transition, but research indicates inconsistencies in how they are implemented. A detailed examination of enablers and barriers that influence their use by PCPs is needed to understand how to improve SCPs and ultimately facilitate cancer survivors' transition to primary care. An interview guide was developed based on the second version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF-2). PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook to code text into each of the 14 TDF-2 domains. Thematic analysis was also used to generate themes and subthemes. Thirteen PCPs completed the interview and identified the following barriers to SCP use: unfamiliarity with the side effects of cancer treatment (Knowledge), lack of clarity on the roles of different healthcare professionals (Social Professional Role and Identity), follow-up tasks being outside of scope of practice (Social Professional Role and Identity), increased workload, lack of options for psychosocial support for survivors, managing different electronic medical records systems, logistical issues with liaising with oncology (Environmental Context and Resources), and patient factors (Social Influences). PCPs value the information provided in SCPs and found the follow-up guidance provided to be most helpful. However, SCP use could be improved through streamlining methods of communication and collaboration between oncology centres and community-based primary care settings.

A review of questionnaires used for the assessment of telemedicine

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine is the exchange of medical information from one site to another via electronic communications with the goal of improving a patient's clinical health status. Prior studies have identified the absence of a standardized assessment tool for evaluating telemedicine encounters. This study aims to collect and to analyze questionnaires used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters from a patient perspective and aims to identify reasons driving the use of self-developed questionnaires.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed for studies that used survey questionnaires to assess synchronous audiovisual telemedicine encounters from 2016 to 2021. We categorized questionnaires used into validated and non-validated types, and for each of them, collected questions, response format, author, year, specialty, and country of publication.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We analyzed a total of 71 articles. We found that only 16 studies used three validated questionnaires. The remaining 55 studies used non-validated questionnaires. Non-validated questionnaires had a high variability in length and used Likert scales, binary responses, multiple choice, and open-ended answers. We found only eight studies in which the authors gave a reason for resorting to designing their own questionnaires. This review reveals insufficient standardized survey questionnaires to be used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters. Future research initiatives should focus on developing a standardized and validated instrument well accepted by researchers.

Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

General practice plays an important role in cancer trajectories, and cancer patients request the continuous involvement of general practice. The objective of this scoping review was to identify healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

A scoping review of the literature published in Danish or English from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Data was collected using identified keywords and indexed terms in several databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest), contacting key experts, searching through reference lists, and reports from selected health political, research- and interest organizations' websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified healthcare practices in cancer trajectories that increase quality care. Identified healthcare practices were grouped into four contextual domains and allocated to defined phases in the cancer trajectory. The results are presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 45 peer-reviewed and six non-peer-reviewed articles and reports were included. Quality of care increases in all phases of the cancer trajectory when GPs listen carefully to the full story and use action plans. After diagnosis, quality of care increases when GPs and practice staff have a proactive care approach, act as interpreters of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences, and engage in care coordination with specialists in secondary care involving the patient.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective. The results support general practice in investigating own healthcare practices and identifying possibilities for quality improvement.KEY POINTSIdentified healthcare practices in general practice that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories:Listen carefully to the full storyUse action plans and time-out-consultationsPlan and provide proactive careAct as an interpreter of diagnosis, treatment options, and its consequences for the patientCoordinate care with specialists, patients, and caregivers with mutual respectIdentified barriers for quality of care in cancer trajectories are:Time constraints in consultationsLimited accessibility for patients and caregiversHealth practices to increase the quality of care should be effective, safe, people-centered, timely, equitable, integrated, and efficient. These distinctions of quality of care, support general practice in investigating and improving quality of care in cancer trajectories.

Eliciting primary care and oncology provider perspectives on diabetes management during active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

We sought to elicit the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists regarding their expectations on who should be responsible for diabetes management, as well as communication mode and frequency about diabetes care during cancer treatment.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with PCPs (physicians and nurse practitioners) and oncologists who treat cancer patients with type 2 diabetes. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data and identify key themes.

RESULTS

Ten PCPs and ten oncologists were interviewed between March and July 2019. Two broad themes emerged from our interviews with PCPs: (1) cancer patients pausing primary care during cancer treatments, and (2) patients with poorer prognoses and advanced cancer. The following theme emerged from our interviews with oncologists: (3) challenges in caring for cancer patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Three common themes emerged from our interviews with both PCPs and oncologists: (4) discomfort with providing care outside of respective specialty, (5) the need to individualize care plans, and (6) lack of communication across primary and oncology care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that substantial barriers to optimal diabetes management during cancer care exist at the provider level. Interventions prioritizing effective communication and educational resources among PCPs, oncologists, and additional members of the patients' care team should be prioritized to achieve optimal outcomes.

Cross-sectoral communication by bringing together patient with cancer, general practitioner and oncologist in a video-based consultation: a qualitative study of oncologists' and nurse specialists' perspectives

Shared care models in the field of cancer aim to improve care coordination, role clarification and patient satisfaction. Cross-sectoral communication is pivotal. Involvement of patients may add to intended mechanisms.A randomised controlled trial 'The Partnership Study' tested the effect of bringing together patient, general practitioner (GP) and oncologist for a consultation conducted by video.

PURPOSE

As part of the process evaluation, this study aimed to explore experiences, attitudes and perspectives of the oncological department on sharing patient consultations with GPs using video.

METHODS

Four semistructured interviews with five oncologists and four nurse specialists were conducted in February 2020. We focused on the informants' experiences and reflections on the potential of future implementation of the concept 'inviting the GP for a shared consultation by video'. The analyses were based on an inductive, open-minded, hermeneutic phenomenological approach.

RESULTS

A total of six overall themes were identified: structuring consultation and communication, perceptions of GP involvement in cancer care, stressors, making a difference, alternative ways of cross-sector communication and needs for redesigning the model. The concept made sense and was deemed useful, but solving the many technical and organisational problems is pivotal. Case-specific tasks and relational issues were targeted by pragmatically rethinking protocol expectations and the usual way of communication and structuring patient encounters. Case selection was discussed as one way of maturing the concept.

CONCLUSION

This Danish study adds new insight into understanding different aspects of the process, causal mechanisms as well as the potential of future implementation of video-based tripartite encounters. Beyond solving the technical problems, case selection and organisational issues are important. Acknowledging the disruption of the usual workflow, the introduction of new phases of the usual encounter and the variety of patient-GP relationships to be embraced may help to better understand and comply with barriers and facilitators of communication and sharing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02716168.

Cross-sectoral video consultation in cancer care: GPs' evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Shared care models present an opportunity for patients to receive the benefits of specialist care combined with the continuity of care provided by a GP.

Aim

To test the effects on GP-perceived involvement in cancer care and their satisfaction with this cross-sectoral information after bringing the patient, GP, and oncologist together in a shared video consultation.

Design & setting

GPs from the Region of Southern Denmark evaluated a randomised controlled trial testing shared video consultations.

Method

This study describes secondary outcomes based on a 4 months' follow-up survey from GPs participating in The Partnership Project (PSP). Patient perception of coordination of care at 7 months' follow-up was the primary outcome of the PSP. A tripartite video consultation was conducted during cancer treatment to share tasks and roles between health professionals with the patient.

Results

The study included 281 patients, and 105 unique GPs returned 124 questionnaires. Video consultations were accomplished in 68% of scheduled cases. The study found an increased odds ratio (OR) of 3.03 for GP satisfaction with the distribution of tasks and roles, and they experienced more involvement in the cancer patients' trajectory. The study found an increased OR of 6.95 for the GP perception of more direct contact and dialogue with the Department of Oncology. There was a decreased OR of 0.88 for the GP to be engaged in handling anxiety and psychological concerns.

Conclusion

The study showed that involving the GP in one shared consultation increased the odds of the GP being satisfied with the distribution of tasks and roles, and feeling more involved in the cancer patient’s trajectory. However, recruitment and response rates from GPs were limiting factors.