Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care

Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP).

OBJECTIVE(S)

To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France.

RESULTS

Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient.

CONCLUSION

In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

Onco-Primary Care of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Primary clinicians foster long-term relationships with patients and play key roles in the treatment journey for patients with cancer. Primary clinicians are important members of the multidisciplinary team, and are central in coordinating and providing supportive care. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments and metastatic disease requires an awareness of their long-term survival benefits and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Primary clinicians collaborate with the oncology care team to increase irAE awareness and identify institutional and individualized approaches to manage irAEs. IrAEs can develop at any time and present with a spectrum of symptoms, making them difficult to differentiate from other conditions. IrAE management relies on early recognition, close monitoring, and intervention with corticosteroids and/or dose interruption. Delayed irAEs underscore the importance of continued clinical vigilance following treatment, as primary clinicians are patients' most enduring point of contact. Primary clinicians have a critical role in supporting the care of patients with cancer and ensuring appropriate irAE recognition, monitoring, and intervention. Long-term continuity of care is critical for the immuno-oncology patient journey.

Interprofessional follow-up of patients with cancer in France (the SINPATIC study): a preliminary, qualitative study of the patient's perspective

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 19.2 million people were diagnosed with cancer, and nearly 10 million cancer patients died worldwide. An effective cancer care pathway must be based on coordination, multidisciplinarity, a personalized approach, and collaboration between stakeholders. Follow-up can be improved by good collaboration and communication between GPs and the cancer care team at a common level of organization.

OBJECTIVES

To study patients with solid cancers and assess their perceptions of the care pathway, the roles of the healthcare professionals involved, and interprofessional collaboration.

METHODS

In a preliminary, qualitative study (part of the SINPATIC study of general practitioners, oncologists, nurses, and patients), adult patients with cancer in the Paris area of France were interviewed between January and April 2018. Using purposive sampling, 10 patients were recruited from hospital departments and primary care. An interview guide explored 3 themes: the care pathway, the stakeholders' roles in follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration.

RESULTS

For patients, dealing with cancer is a complex process of awareness, care provision, decision-making, task assignment, a lack of clarification of professional roles, a piecemeal announcement of the diagnosis of cancer by several stakeholders, organizational and administrative difficulties, non-formal collaboration in inertia (tending towards collaboration under construction), and with cancer follow-up that was usually parallel, sometimes shared, rarely sequential.

CONCLUSION

This SINPATIC substudy provided us a better understanding of the complexity of the patient care pathway. Looking forward, the present findings might stimulate thoughts on the design and development of interventional studies.

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scale-clinician version

Objective

Patient safety management systems in general hospitals require a comprehensive tool for assessing the expectations of inpatients across different wards. This study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a new scale, the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scale-clinician version (HOPE-C), to meet this requirement.

Methods

We interviewed 35 experts and 10 inpatients while developing the HOPE-C scale. The scale was initially designed with three dimensions: clinicians' expectations regarding doctor-patient communication, clinicians' expectations regarding treatment outcome, and clinicians' expectations regarding disease management. We recruited 200 inpatients from a general hospital in China. At the same time, 51 clinicians were assigned to the enrolled patients who completed the HOPE-C to examine the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. We applied item analysis, assessed construct validity, evaluated internal consistency, and conducted a test-retest reliability analysis over 7 days.

Results

Both exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a 2-dimensional structure, comprising doctor-patient communication expectations and treatment outcome expectations, with favorable model fit parameters (root mean square residual [RMR] = 0.042, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.049, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.989, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.984). Item analysis demonstrated appropriate item design (r = 0.744-0.961). The scale exhibited strong internal consistency, with Cronbach's α values of 0.884, 0.816, and 0.840 for the overall scale, the doctor-patient communication expectation subscale, and the treatment outcome expectation subscale, respectively. The 7-day test-retest reliability was 0.996 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the HOPE-C is a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring the expectations of inpatients in general hospitals. It effectively identifies patients' expectations concerning doctor-patient communication and treatment outcomes.

Physician- and Patient-Elicited Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of a Machine Learning-Based Screening Tool for Peripheral Arterial Disease: Preimplementation Study With Physician and Patient Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is underdiagnosed, partially due to a high prevalence of atypical symptoms and a lack of physician and patient awareness. Implementing clinical decision support tools powered by machine learning algorithms may help physicians identify high-risk patients for diagnostic workup.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a novel machine learning-based screening tool for PAD among physician and patient stakeholders using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

We performed semistructured interviews with physicians and patients from the Stanford University Department of Primary Care and Population Health, Division of Cardiology, and Division of Vascular Medicine. Participants answered questions regarding their perceptions toward machine learning and clinical decision support for PAD detection. Rapid thematic analysis was performed using templates incorporating codes from CFIR constructs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 physicians (6 primary care physicians and 6 cardiovascular specialists) and 14 patients were interviewed. Barriers to implementation arose from 6 CFIR constructs: complexity, evidence strength and quality, relative priority, external policies and incentives, knowledge and beliefs about intervention, and individual identification with the organization. Facilitators arose from 5 CFIR constructs: intervention source, relative advantage, learning climate, patient needs and resources, and knowledge and beliefs about intervention. Physicians felt that a machine learning-powered diagnostic tool for PAD would improve patient care but cited limited time and authority in asking patients to undergo additional screening procedures. Patients were interested in having their physicians use this tool but raised concerns about such technologies replacing human decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and physician-reported barriers toward the implementation of a machine learning-powered PAD diagnostic tool followed four interdependent themes: (1) low familiarity or urgency in detecting PAD; (2) concerns regarding the reliability of machine learning; (3) differential perceptions of responsibility for PAD care among primary care versus specialty physicians; and (4) patient preference for physicians to remain primary interpreters of health care data. Facilitators followed two interdependent themes: (1) enthusiasm for clinical use of the predictive model and (2) willingness to incorporate machine learning into clinical care. Implementation of machine learning-powered diagnostic tools for PAD should leverage provider support while simultaneously educating stakeholders on the importance of early PAD diagnosis. High predictive validity is necessary for machine learning models but not sufficient for implementation.

Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens

PURPOSE

Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy.

RESULTS

Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

PURPOSE

Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups.

RESULTS

The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice.

METHODS

Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191538.

Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity

OBJECTIVE

To examine the associations of primary care physician (PCP) care continuity with cancer-specific survival and end-of-life care intensity.

DATA SOURCES

Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results linked to Medicare claims data from 2001 to 2015.

STUDY DESIGN

Cox proportional hazards models with mixed effects and hierarchical generalized logistic models were used to examine the associations of PCP care continuity with cancer-specific survival and end-of-life care intensity, respectively. PCP care continuity, defined as having visited the predominant PCP (who saw the patient most frequently before diagnosis) within 6 months of diagnosis.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified Medicare patients diagnosed at age 66.5-94 years with stage-III or IV poor-prognosis cancer during 2001-2012 and followed them up until 2015. Patients who died within 6 months after diagnosis were excluded.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Primary study cohort consisted of 85,467 patients (median survival 22 months), 71.7% of whom had PCP care continuity. Patients with PCP care continuity tended to be older, married, nonblack, non-Hispanic, and to have fewer comorbid conditions (p < 0.001 for all). Patients with PCP care continuity had lower cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 0.95; p = 0.001) than did those without PCP care continuity. Findings of the 2001-2003 cohorts (nearly all of whom died by 2015) show no associations of overall end-of-life care intensity measures with PCP care continuity (adjusted marginal effects: 0.005; 95% CI: -0.016 to 0.026; p = 0.264).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced poor-prognosis cancer, PCP continuity was associated with modestly improved survival without raising overall aggressive end-of-life care.

Family physicians supporting patients with palliative care needs within the patient medical home in the community: an appreciative inquiry study

OBJECTIVES

Canadians want to live and die in their home communities. Unfortunately, Canada has the highest proportion of deaths in acute care facilities as compared with other developed nations. This study aims to identify the essential components required to best support patients and families with palliative care needs in their communities to inform system changes and empower family physicians (FPs) in providing community-based palliative care for patients.

DESIGN

Appreciative inquiry (AI) methodology with individual interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed iteratively for emerging themes and used to develop 'possibility statements' to frame discussion in subsequent focus groups. A conceptual framework emerged to describe the 'destiny' state as per AI methods.

SETTING

FPs, palliative home care providers, patients and bereaved caregivers were recruited in the urban and surrounding rural health authority zones of Calgary, AB, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

9 females and 9 males FPs (range of practice years 2-42) in interviews; 8 bereaved caregivers, 1 patient, 26 palliative home care team members in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were recorded digitally and transcribed with consent.

RESULTS

The identified themes that transcended all three groups created the foundation for the conceptual framework. Enhanced communication and fostering team relationships between all care providers with the focus on the patient and caregivers was the cornerstone concept. The FP/patient relationship must be protected and encouraged by all care providers, while more system flexibility is needed to respond more effectively to patients. These concepts must exist in the context that patients and caregivers need more education regarding the benefits of palliative care, while increasing public discourse about mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Key areas were identified for how the patient's team can work together effectively to improve the patient and caregiver palliative care journey in the community with the cornerstone element of building on the trusting FP-patient longitudinal relationship.

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.

Continuity of Cancer Care and Collaboration Between Family Physicians and Oncologists: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Collaboration between family physicians (FPs) and oncologists can be challenging. We present the results of a randomized clinical trial of an intervention designed to improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration, as perceived by patients with lung cancer and their FPs.

METHODS

The intervention included (1) supplying FPs with standardized summaries related to each patient, (2) recommending that patients see their FP after receiving the cancer diagnosis, (3) supplying the oncology team with patient information resulting from FP visits, and (4) providing patients with priority access to FPs as needed. A total of 206 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 104) or control group (n = 102), and 86.4% of involved FPs participated. Perceptions of continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration were assessed every 3 months for patients and at baseline and at the end of the study for FPs. Patient distress and health service utilization were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients and FPs in the intervention group perceived better interprofessional collaboration (patients: P <.0001; FPs: P = .0006) than those in the control group. Patients reported better informational continuity (P = .001) and management continuity (P = .05) compared to the control group, but no differences were found for FPs (information: P = .22; management: P = .13). No effect was found with regard to patient distress or health service utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention improved patient and FP perception of interprofessional collaboration, but its effectiveness on continuity of care was less clear for FPs than for patients. Additional strategies should be considered to sustainably improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration.

Comorbidity Management in Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer: the Role of Primary Care in Shared Care

BACKGROUND

Black women are more likely to have comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis compared with White women, which may account for half of the Black-White survivor disparity. Comprehensive disease management requires a coordinated team of healthcare professionals including primary care practitioners, but few studies have examined shared care in the management of comorbidities during cancer care, especially among racial/ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the type of medical team composition is associated with optimal clinical care management of comorbidities.

DESIGN

We used the Women's Circle of Health Follow-up Study, a population-based cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. The likelihood of receiving optimal comorbidity management after breast cancer diagnosis was compared by type of medical team composition (shared care versus cancer specialists only) using binomial regression.

PARTICIPANTS

Black women with a co-diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension at breast cancer diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 (N = 274).

MAIN MEASURES

Outcome-optimal clinical care management of diabetes (i.e., A1C test, LDL-C test, and medical attention for nephropathy) and hypertension (i.e., lipid screening and prescription for hypertension medication). Main predictor-shared care, whether the patient received care from both a cancer specialist and a primary care provider and/or a medical specialist within the 12 months following a breast cancer diagnosis.

KEY RESULTS

Primary care providers were the main providers involved in managing comorbidities and 90% of patients received shared care during breast cancer care. Only 54% had optimal comorbidity management. Patients with shared care were five times (aRR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.66, 12.84) more likely to have optimal comorbidity management compared with patients who only saw cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal management of comorbidities during breast cancer care exists for Black women. However, our findings suggest that shared care is more beneficial at achieving optimal clinical care management for diabetes and hypertension than cancer specialists alone.

A randomized clinical trial assessing a pragmatic intervention to improve supportive care for family caregivers of patients with lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients often experience high distress. This randomized clinical trial assessed the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve FC supportive care.

METHOD

A pragmatic and minimal intervention to improve FC supportive care was developed and pretested with FCs, oncology team, and family physicians to assess its relevance and acceptability. Then, FCs of lung cancer patients were randomized to the intervention or the control group. The intervention included (1) systematic FC distress screening and problem assessment in the first months after their relative cancer diagnosis, and every 2 months after; (2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse to address FC problems, provide emotional support and skills to play their caregiving role; (3) liaison with the family physician of FCs reporting high distress (distress thermometer score ≥4/10) to involve them in the provision of supportive care. Distress, the primary outcome, was measured every 3 months, for 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, caregiving preparedness, and perceived burden. At the end of their participation, a purposive sample of FC from the experimental group was individually interviewed to assess the intervention usefulness. Content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 109 FCs participated in the trial. FC distress decreased over time, but this reduction was observed in both groups. Similar results were found for secondary outcomes. However, FCs who received the intervention felt better prepared in caregiving than controls (p = 0.05). All 10 interviewed FCs valued the intervention, even though they clearly underused it. Knowing they could contact the oncology nurse served as a security net.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Although the intervention was not found effective, some of its aspects were positively perceived by FCs. As many of them experience high distress, an improved intervention should be developed to better support them.

"Very humble" vs. "Not humble": What do ratings of fictitious physician profiles with humility descriptors reveal about potential patient preferences and behaviors?

OBJECTIVES

The current study examined the impact of physician humility on future medical interactions and physician-related outcomes (e.g., patient patronage, loyalty) using a non-patient, community sample.

METHODS

Participants (N = 417) were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) and paid a nominal fee for their participation. They reviewed randomly assigned fictitious physician profiles that differed in humility (high, low), general effectiveness (high, low), physician gender (male, female), and specialty (family practice, orthopedic surgery). Then they reported their likelihood to trust, adhere to recommendations, and be satisfied with the physician. They also conveyed how likely they would select and recommend this physician to others, and how much out-of-pocket money they would be willing to spend to see the physician.

RESULTS

Humble physicians were rated higher than their non-humble counterparts on all five outcomes. For physicians who were generally ineffective, the physicians low in humility scored lower on intended adherence, trust, and anticipated satisfaction than the physicians high in humility. Additionally, for physicians specializing in family practice, physicians low in humility scored lower on anticipated satisfaction and out-of-pocket expenditure than the physicians high in humility.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study highlight how physician humility can affect the process of care even before it begins.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study emphasizes the need for deliberate pursuit of humility to improve outcomes for patients and physicians.

'I had to tell my GP I had lung cancer': patient perspectives of hospital- and community-based lung cancer care

Lung cancer care spans both hospital- and community-based healthcare settings, and suboptimal communication between healthcare providers impacts on continuity and quality of care. Patients' experiences regarding: (1) communication between healthcare providers; and (2) the role of their GP during cancer treatment was explored in interviews with 47 Western Australian lung cancer patients. Thematic analysis using a phenomenological approach was undertaken to derive key themes regarding participant experiences. Poor communication between hospital cancer specialists (HCSs) influenced participants' treatment choices and perceptions of the quality of their care. Information provided by HCSs to GPs was often delayed or incomplete, and many participants perceived themselves as a messenger between healthcare settings. Participants' opinions about the GP role during cancer treatment ranged from 'no role' to an 'active member of the treating team'. A new model of cancer care is needed where the GP is considered part of the treating team. Early involvement of GPs and two-way communication between hospital and primary care during the disease continuum is required for this to occur.

Patient perspectives on primary care and oncology care coordination in the context of multiple chronic conditions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients' views on the optimal model for care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists in the context of cancer and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unclear. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the perceptions of patients with both cancer and MCC regarding their care coordination needs.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, the literature was systematically searched through PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for articles pertaining to patients' perspectives, experiences, and needs regarding care coordination between PCPs and oncologists during the cancer care continuum, in the context of patients with cancer and MCC. English-language articles were included if they met the following criteria: 1) published between 2008 and 2018; 2) peer-reviewed study; 3) patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with any type or stage of cancer; 4) patients have one or more chronic comorbid condition; 5) inclusion of patient perceptions, experiences, or needs related to care coordination between PCPs and oncologists; and 6) ability to extract results. Data extraction was performed with a standardized form, and themes were developed through qualitative synthesis. A grounded theory approach was used to qualitatively evaluate data extracted from articles and create a framework for providers to consider when developing patient-centered care coordination strategies for these complex patients. Risk of bias within each study was assessed independently by two authors using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were retained, representing the perspectives of 8,114 patients with cancer and MCC. Studies were heterogeneous in the patients' respective phases of cancer care and study design. From qualitative synthesis, four themes emerged regarding patients' needs for cancer care coordination and were included as constructs to develop the Patient-centered Care Coordination among Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions and Cancer (PCP-MC) framework. Constructs included: 1) Communication; 2) Defining provider care roles; 3) Information access; and 4) Individualized patient care. Care navigators served as a communication bridge between providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance that patients with both cancer and MCC place on communication with and between providers, efficient access to understandable care information, defined provider care roles, and care tailored to their individual needs and circumstances. Providers and policymakers may consider the developed PCP-MC framework when designing, implementing, and evaluating patient-centered care coordination strategies for patients with both cancer and MCC.

Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

PURPOSE

Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ²-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff (P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

A Cancer Patient Journey: Complete Review During Acute Treatment Phase

Purpose: Cancer is a chronic illness with acute episodes lasting for years. Most cancer patients have coexisting comorbidities, which affect cancer treatment outcomes and make a shared care model for chronic diseases essential. There is a considerable gap between the achievable and delivered quality of care for cancer patients. Methods: We used a case study approach to examine the complexity of cancer management, from the perspective of one person's case as interpreted by the care team. It allowed the complexity of cancer management to retain its holistic and meaningful characteristics. We interviewed the patient, caregiver, primary care physician (PCP), and oncologist. Interviews were audio recorded and analyzed with ATLASti, qualitative statistical software. Participants also completed a basic demographic survey. Common themes were identified, analyzed, and discussed. Results: Main themes were lack of longitudinal relationship with PCP, communication barriers, and ambiguous health care provider roles. Communication barriers can be associated with the other two main themes. Conclusion: Our results showed that shared care for cancer management is lacking during the acute cancer treatment phase. Communication barriers between the PCP and oncologist along with lack of continuity of care and unclear role of the PCP are major contributors for fragmented cancer care in U.S. health care system.

FLOW: Early results from a clinical demonstration project to improve the transition of patients with mental health disorders back to primary care

Access to mental health (MH) care is of paramount concern to U.S. health care delivery systems, including the Veterans Health Administration. To improve access, there is a need to better focus existing MH resources toward care for those most in need of specialty-level MH treatment. This article provides early results of Project FLOW's (not an acronym) approach to developing and evaluating electronic medical record (EMR)-based criteria to identify clinically stable patients and promote their effective transition from specialty MH back to primary care (PC). Implementation utilized a blended facilitation approach consistent with Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). The Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided measurement of implementation outcomes. During FLOW, 424 unique MH patients transitioned from MH to PC; of those, only 9 (2.1%) returned to MH after that transition. Most of those patients (n = 335; 79.0%) were first identified on the MH FLOW report, but 89 (21.0%) were other MH patients. The total number of patients discharged due to recovery or stabilization was 411. The 335 patients represent 21.3% of all unique patients (n = 1,566) who met the EMR criteria during the project. The 411 recovered/stabilized patients are 16.4% of all unique MH patients (n = 2,504) treated at the site. These early results suggest that this EMR-based system, combined with sound clinical practices, can be used to identify MH patients who are candidates for transition and foster their effective transition to care management in PC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Continuity of care in general practice at cancer diagnosis (COOC-GP study): a national cohort study of 2853 patients

BACKGROUND

At cancer diagnosis, it is unclear whether continuity of care (COC) between the patient and GP is safeguarded.

AIM

To identify patient-GP loss of COC around the time of, and in the year after, a cancer diagnosis, together with its determinants.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A post-hoc analysis of data from a prospective cohort of GPs in France, taken from a survey by the Observatoire de la Médecine Générale.

METHOD

A prospective GP cohort (n = 96) filed data on patients who were diagnosed with incident cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010. COC was assessed by ascertaining the frequency of consultations and the maximal interval between them. (In France, patients see their referring/named GP in most cases.) A loss of COC was measured during the trimester before and the year after the cancer diagnosis, and the results compared with those from a 1-year baseline period before cancer had been diagnosed. A loss of COC was defined as a longer interval (that is, the maximum number of days) between consultations in the measurement periods than at baseline. Determinants of the loss in COC were assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 2853 patients were included; the mean age was 66.1 years. Of these, 1440 (50.5%) were women, 389 (13.6%) had metastatic cancer, and 769 (27.0%) had a comorbidity. The mean number of consultations increased up to, and including, the first trimester after diagnosis. Overall, 26.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.3 to 28.6) of patients had a loss of COC in the trimester before the diagnosis, and 22.3% (95% CI = 20.7 to 23.9) in the year after. Increasing comorbidity score was independently associated with a reduction in the loss of COC during the year after diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comorbidity versus no comorbidity 0.61, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.79); the same was true for metastatic status (adjusted OR metastasis versus no metastasis 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.70).

CONCLUSION

As COC is a core value for GPs and for most patients, special care should be taken to prevent a loss of COC around the time of a cancer diagnosis, and in the year after.

Who should provide care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy? A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners and oncologists

INTRODUCTION

While close collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital specialists is considered important, the sharing of care responsibilities between GPs and oncologists during palliative chemotherapy has not been clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy.

DESIGN

We conducted semi-structured interviews using six hypothetical scenarios with purposively sampled GPs (n = 12) and oncologists (n = 10) in the Netherlands. Each represented an example of a clinical problem requiring different aspects of care: problems likely, or not, related to cancer or chemotherapy, need for decision support, and end-of-life care.

RESULTS

GPs and oncologists agreed that GPs should provide end-of-life care and that they should be involved in decisions about palliative chemotherapy; however, for the other scenarios most participants considered themselves the most appropriate provider of care. Themes that emerged regarding who would provide the best care for the patients in the different scenarios were expertise, continuity of care, accessibility of care, doctor-patient relationship, and communication. Most participants mentioned improved communication between the GP and oncologist as being essential for a better coordination and quality of care.

CONCLUSION

GPs and oncologists have different opinions about who should ideally provide different aspects of care during palliative chemotherapy. Findings raise awareness of the differences in reasoning and approaches and in current communication deficits between the two groups of health professionals. These findings could be used to improve coordination and collaboration and, ultimately, better patient care as results demonstrated that both disciplines can add value to the care for patients with advanced cancer. Key points This study identified contrasting opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Important themes that emerged were expertise, continuity of care, doctor-patient relations, accessibility of care, and communication. Although frequently using the same arguments, GPs and oncologists often considered themselves to be the most appropriate providers of palliative care.

The Role of Primary Care Physicians in Providing End-of-Life Care

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians (PCPs) frequently have long-term relationships with patients as well as their families. As such they are well positioned to care for their patients at the end of their lives. As the number of patients in need of end-of-life care continues to grow, it is critical to understand how PCPs can fulfill that need. The purpose of our study is to perform a narrative review of the literature and develop a theoretical model delineating the overarching roles played by PCPs in caring for patients at the end of life.

METHODS

For this narrative review, the authors searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to March 22, 2017. Articles were not limited by geography.

RESULTS

Review of existing literature generally supports 4 broad categories as the primary roles for PCP involvement in end of life: pain and symptom management; information management, including transmitting and clarifying information, setting care priorities, and assisting patients with treatment decisions; coordinating care and collaborating with other providers; and addressing patients' social, emotional, and spiritual needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this review, PCPs provide a wide range of services to patients at the end of life. Promoting the provision of the full scope of services by PCPs will help ensure improved continuity of care while providing the highest quality of care for patients, both in the United States and around the world.

Transitioning Patients From Specialty Care to Primary Care: What We Know and What We Can Do

Growing demand for specialty care has resulted in longer wait times for appointments, particularly at US academic referral centers. A proportion of specialty visits are for routine follow-up care of stable problems, and there is evidence that primary care providers are willing and able to take responsibility for a significant proportion of these patients. However, little is known about how to transition care back to a referring primary care clinician in a manner that is acceptable to everyone involved. In this article, we describe social, legal, and financial barriers to effective care transition and propose communication strategies to overcome them.

Face-to-face communication between patients and family physicians in Canada: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-provider communication is critical in primary care. Canada's unique health system, population distribution, and cultural context suggest there is value in addressing the topic in the Canadian context. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize recent Canadian literature to inform practice in primary care settings and identify research agendas for patient-provider communication in Canada.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework we searched four literature databases: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and EMBASE. We extracted 21,932 articles published between 2010 and 2017. A total of 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: information sharing, relationships, health system challenges, and development and use of communication tools.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified a need for Canadian research regarding: communication in primary care with Aboriginal, immigrant, and rural populations; the impact of medical tourism on primary care; and how to improve communication to facilitate continuity of care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Challenges providers face in primary care in Canada include: communicating with linguistically and culturally diverse populations; addressing issues that emerge with the rise of medical tourism; a need for decision aids to improve communication with patients.

Experiences of hospital-based multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology: An interview study among participating general practitioners

Background: Cancer care has become complex, requiring healthcare professionals to collaborate to provide high-quality care. Multidisciplinary oncological team (MDT) meetings in the hospital have been implemented to coordinate individual cancer patients’ care. General practitioners (GPs) are invited to join, but their participation is minimal.

Objectives: Aim of this study is to explore participating GPs’ perceptions of their current role and to understand their preferences towards effective role execution during MDT meetings.

Methods: In May to June 2014, semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were conducted involving GPs with MDT experience in Belgium. The analysis was done according to qualitative content analysis principles.

Results: Attendance of an MDT meeting is perceived as part of the GP’s work, especially for complex patient care situations. Interprofessional collaborative relationships and the GP’s perceived benefit to the MDT meeting discussions are important motivators to participate. Enhanced continuity of information flow and optimized organizational time management were practical aspects triggering the GP’s intention to participate. GPs valued the communication with the patient before and after the meeting as an integral part of the MDT dynamics.

Conclusion: GPs perceive attendance of the MDT meeting as an integral part of their job. Suggestions are made to enhance the efficiency of the meetings.

Patients' and carers' perspectives of palliative care in general practice: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

General practitioners have overall responsibility for community care, including towards end of life. Current policy places generalists at the centre of palliative care provision. However, little is known about how patients and carers understand the general practitioner's role.

AIMS

To explore patient and carer perspectives of (1) the role of the general practitioner in providing palliative care to adult patients and (2) the facilitators and barriers to the general practitioner's capacity to fulfil this perceived role.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, Cochrane and HMIC) were searched from inception to May 2017. Two reviewers independently screened papers at title, abstract and full-text stages. Grey literature, guideline, hand searches of five journals and reference list/citation searches of included papers were undertaken. Data were extracted, tabulated and synthesised using narrative, thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included: 14 employed qualitative methods, 8 quantitative survey methods and 3 mixed-methods. Five key themes were identified: continuity of care, communication between primary and secondary care, contact and accessibility, communication between general practitioner and patient, and knowledge and competence.

CONCLUSION

Although the terminology and context of general practice vary internationally, themes relating to the perceived role of general practitioners were consistent. General practitioners are considered well placed to provide palliative care due to their breadth of clinical responsibility, ongoing relationships with patients and families, and duty to visit patients at home and coordinate healthcare resources. These factors, valued by service users, should influence future practice and policy development.

Oncologists' views on the importance of general practitioners for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

Integrated cancer care requires cooperation between specialists and general practitioners (GPs). Mutual understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities is essential if cooperation is to be successful. While GPs' opinions about oncologists have been addressed in previous studies, less is known about oncologists' views on the role of GPs' in cancer care, especially with regard to GPs' patient-centred, communication-based tasks.

OBJECTIVE

To assess oncologists' views on the importance of GPs for cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted 15 qualitative guideline-based telephone interviews with oncologists using open-ended questions and analysed these interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Oncologists situated GPs as persons of trust for patients in a rather amicable sphere of caring in contrast to themselves who were situated in a rather biomedical sphere of evidence-based treatment decisions. Oncologists' appraisal of an overlapping of these spheres varied: While most stressed opportunities for patients (and themselves), others also mentioned risks.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that oncologists clearly distinguish between their own sphere of evidence-based treatment decision-making and GPs' sphere of psychosocial caring. The question remains how these roles get interconnected in real life situations in order to meet patients' needs adequately. So far it seems that it is often the patient who is travelling between both spheres and needs to initiate interconnection to get comprehensive cancer care.

Defining cancer survivors, their needs, and perspectives on survivorship health care in the USA

More people are living after a diagnosis of cancer than ever before and now account for around 5% of the US population. The specialty of cancer survivorship has been developing and growing since the mid-1980s, but the term survivor is open to debate by people living with cancer and those caring for them. Regardless of the term used, many ongoing physical, psychological, and social needs affect quality of life for people who are living with cancer and those who have survived the disease. Survivors prefer to have these needs addressed by their oncologist but also want their primary care provider to have a role. However, survivors also believe there are communication and coordination barriers between care providers. The existing method for delivering cancer care is becoming unsustainable and is not adequately configured to deliver high-quality cancer care to this growing population in the USA, especially when confronted with projected health-care shortages by 2020. In this Series paper, we define the term cancer survivor, discuss survivors' ongoing needs and preferences for care over time, and consider the implications for delivering coordinated cancer care in the USA.

Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

BACKGROUND

Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing.

RESULTS

The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed.

A population-based assessment of primary care visits during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

We used administrative health data to explore the impact of primary care physician (pcp) visits on acute-care service utilization by women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (ebc).

METHODS

Our population-based retrospective cohort study examined pcp visits and acute-care use [defined as an emergency room (er) visit or hospitalization] by women diagnosed with ebc between 2007 and 2009 and treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify the effect of pcp visits on the likelihood of experiencing an acute-care visit.

RESULTS

Patients receiving chemotherapy visited a pcp significantly more frequently than they had before their diagnosis [relative risk (rr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.44 to 1.53; p < 0.001] and significantly more frequently than control subjects without cancer (rr: 1.51; 95% ci: 1.46 to 1.57; p < 0.001). More than one third of pcp visits by chemotherapy patients were related to breast cancer or chemotherapy-related side effects. In adjusted multivariate analyses, the likelihood of experiencing an er visit or hospitalization increased in the days immediately after a pcp visit (rr: 1.92; 95% ci: 1.76 to 2.10; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

During chemotherapy treatment, patients visited their pcp more frequently than control subjects did, and they visited for reasons related to their breast cancer or to chemotherapy-related side effects. Visits to a pcp by patients receiving chemotherapy were associated with an increased frequency of er visits or hospitalizations in the days immediately after the pcp visit. Those results suggest an opportunity to institute measures for early detection and intervention in chemotherapy side effects.

Towards Integrating Primary Care with Cancer Care: A Regional Study of Current Gaps and Opportunities in Canada

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Better integration between cancer care systems and primary care physicians (PCPs) is a goal of most healthcare systems, but little direction exists on how this can be achieved. This study systematically examined the extent of integration between PCPs and a regional cancer program (RCP) to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHOD

Cross-sectional survey of all practising PCPs in the region of interest using a study-specific instrument based on a three-tier conceptualization of integration.

RESULTS

Among the 473 PCPs who responded (63% response rate), perceived role clarity and the desire for greater involvement in patient care varied across the care trajectory. Specific gaps were identified in PCPs' understanding of the referral process and patient follow-up after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our novel survey of PCPs explicated the strategies that could improve their integration in cancer care, including mechanisms to support PCPs in the initial diagnosis of their patients and standardized post-treatment transition plans outlining care roles and responsibilities.

Development and validation of an individualized survivorship care plan (ISCP) for women with endometrial cancer during the transition of the end of active treatment to the cancer survivorship

Many cancer survivors finish their treatment without knowing the associated health risks and few are prepared to handle their health needs in the survivorship phase. Moreover, practical guides for follow- up care are not available and survivors' psychological and social needs often go unassessed. In this article, we propose the development and implementation of an individualized follow-up care plan (IFCP) after active treatment for women with endometrial cancers (WEC) to meet their needs for information and to facilitate the transition to the survivorship phase.

Background

The after-treatment phase is a distinct phase that is still neglected in the oncological continuum of care. It is the transition between two phases in the care trajectory-treatment and survivorship-that gives rise to many challenges for survivors, care providers and the healthcare system alike.

Research goal

Aiming to facilitate the transition between the end of active treatment and the cancer survivorship phases, we pursued two objectives: 1) Develop an individualized follow-up care plan (IFCP) based on both the literature and the perspective of WEC, healthcare professionals involved with the target clientele and oncology outreach managers, and 2) Have this IFCP validated by an interdisciplinary team.

Methodology

For the first objective, WEC-related needs at the end of active treatment (immediate end, three months and six months), as well as the perceptions of health professionals and oncology outreach managers were gathered by interview and group discussion on the benefit of an IFCP, its content and desired format. A content analysis of the interview data was performed using the Miles and Huberman approach (2003). For the second objective, an iterative consultation process with health professionals allowed for validation by consensus. These two objectives are the first qualitative phase of a mixed-methods sequential exploratory design that will make the development of an IFCP possible. In the second phase, we conducted a feasibility study of the implementation of the IFCP during the end of active treatment transition to cancer survivorship transition. This will be the subject of a second article.

Results

The interviews (n=47) revealed WECs' lack of preparation for the transition from the end of active treatment to the cancer survivorship. The following needs were specified: information (80%), emotional support, particularly to overcome their fear of recurrence (75%), the management of physical symptoms (45%), and support for adapting to change (45%). The data gathered from healthcare professionals and outreach managers support the utility of an IFCP in meeting these needs. The iterative validation process by the interdisciplinary team made consensus on the format and content possible. The final version of the IFCP is seen as a tool for information and communication in the survivorship phase. Some obstacles to its transfer to clinical practice are reported.

Conclusion

This study presents the entire process that led to the development of an IFCP that integrates both the needs of endometrial cancer survivors and the opinions of healthcare professionals and the oncology outreach managers organizing this care. Indications on how the IFCP could be implemented within this organization are also formulated.

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives of Their Role in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As survival rates improve, cancer is increasingly considered a chronic illness associated with significant long-term burden and sequelae, both physical and psychological. Various models of cancer care, including primary care physician (PCP)-led and shared-care, have been proposed, though a systematic review of PCPs' perspectives of their role and challenges in providing cancer care remains lacking. This systematic review summarises available literature on PCPs' perspectives of their role in cancer care.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH headings for articles from 1993-2015 exploring PCPs' views of their role in the care of patients/survivors of both child and adult cancers. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for full-text review, abstracted data and performed a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles representing the perspectives of 10,941 PCPs were captured. PCPs' confidence to provide care varied according to cancer phase (e.g. treatment versus survivorship), care domain (e.g. acute medical care versus psychological late effects), and disease prevalence (e.g. breast malignancies versus childhood cancers), with preferences for shared- versus independent-care models varying accordingly. Barriers included a lack of timely and specific information/communication from oncologists and limited knowledge/lack of guidelines, as well as lack of time, remuneration and patient trust.

LIMITATIONS

The data was limited by a lack of consideration of the preferences of patients and oncologists, leading to uncertainty about the acceptability and feasibility of suggested changes to cancer care.

DISCUSSION

PCPs appear willing to provide cancer care for patients/survivors; however, they report barriers and unmet needs related to providing such care. Future research/interventions should take into account the preferences and needs of PCPs.

The role of the GP in follow-up cancer care: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to explore the role of the general practitioners, family physicians and primary care physicians (GP) in the provision of follow-up cancer care.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for primary research focussing on the role of the GP from the perspective of GPs and patients. Data were extracted using a standardised form and synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The initial search generated 6487 articles: 25 quantitative and 33 qualitative articles were included. Articles focused on patients' and GPs' perspectives of the GP role in follow-up cancer care. Some studies reported on the current role of the GP, barriers and enablers to GP involvement from the perspective of the GP and suggestions for future GP roles. Variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector exist. However, GPs and patients across the included studies supported a greater GP role in follow-up cancer care. This included greater support for care coordination, screening, diagnosis and management of physical and psychological effects of cancer and its treatment, symptom and pain relief, health promotion, palliative care and continuing normal general health care provision.

CONCLUSION

While there are variations in guidelines and practice of follow-up cancer care in the primary health care sector, GPs and patients across the reviewed studies supported a greater role by the GP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Greater GP role in cancer care could improve the quality of patient care for cancer survivors. Better communication between the tertiary sector and GP across the cancer phases would enable clear delineation of roles.

Primary care physicians and oncologists are partners in cancer announcement

PURPOSE

The primary care physician (PCP) is central to cancer patients' management. Announcement of the diagnosis is a critical time for patients, even if they wish to be fully informed. The French National Cancer Plan, developed 10 years ago, includes a diagnosis disclosure procedure (DDP) to be used by oncologists, which makes specific provision for a time of communication with PCPs. So, we asked PCPs about their role in cancer announcement since the launching of the DDP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional prospective study by postal questionnaire was sent to 500 PCPs in the largest region of France. It addressed (1) the characteristics of cancer disclosure, (2) PCPs' source of information of the diagnosis, (3) time of disclosure, (4) information exchange, and (5) the physicians' knowledge of the DDP.

RESULTS

The response rate was 48 %. In 20 % of cases, oncologists delegated the announcement to PCPs. In 19 % of cases, it was the patient or their family who informed the PCP of the diagnosis. We identified three announcement phases of cancer diagnosis in the physicians' clinical practice: pre-disclosure, disclosure, and repeat disclosure. In 57 % of cases, PCPs lacked information on prognosis and in 60 % on treatment. Regarding the DDP, nearly half of PCPs did not know the procedure itself or its content.

CONCLUSION

PCPs announce the cancer diagnosis, even if they have not received the necessary information to do so. The DDP needs to be adapted for use in primary care practice.

Relevance to family practice of English-language guidelines on breast, colorectal and prostate cancer: a review

BACKGROUND

GPs regard cancer guidelines as useful yet criticise their limited applicability to the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines contain recommendations that are relevant to GPs and to find out which of the GPs' roles in cancer care the recommendations refer to.

METHODS

Evidence- and consent-based English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines were searched for in guideline databases and selected guideline providers' web pages, and checked against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant recommendations were identified, extracted and examined. The involvement of GPs in guideline development as well as whether they were named as a target group was further investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 65 identified guidelines, 35 were eligible and contained recommendations applicable to GPs. GPs were directly involved in the development of the majority of only breast cancer guidelines and were explicitly named as a target group in fewer than 50% of guidelines. The majority of recommendations dealt with patient-physician communication, with a focus on cancer therapy. Rarer procedural recommendations predominantly concentrated on follow-up/survivorship care. Less than one-third of all relevant recommendations concerned diagnosis. Only breast cancer guidelines provided a high number of recommendations on transitions between primary and secondary care.

CONCLUSION

Greater consideration of GPs would increase their acceptance of guidelines, promote delivery of high-quality cancer care and clarify responsibilities between cancer care providers. The GP's role in cancer diagnosis is not appropriately reflected in cancer guideline recommendations.

Complementary medicine for cancer patients in general practice: qualitative interviews with german general practitioners

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate how general practitioners react when their cancer patients show interest in complementary medicine, and how their reaction is related to their knowledge in the field.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 German general practitioners. Interviewees came from 5 different federal states and varied in terms of urban/rural setting, single/joint practice, additional certifications, gender and length of professional experience. Interviews were electronically recorded, transcribed and then analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.

RESULTS

General practitioners feel largely responsible for providing information on complementary medicine to their cancer patients. However, uncertainty and a lack of knowledge concerning CAM lead mainly to reactive responses to patients' needs, and the general practitioners base their recommendations on personal experiences and attitudes. They wish to support their cancer patients and thus, in order to keep their patients' hopes up and maintain a trusting relationship, sometimes support complementary medicine, regardless of their own convictions.

CONCLUSION

Although general practitioners see themselves as an important source of information on complementary medicine for their cancer patients, they also speak of their uncertainties and lack of knowledge. General practitioners would profit from training in complementary medicine enabling them to discuss this topic with their cancer patients in a proactive, open and honest manner.

Do patients with long-term side effects of cancer treatment benefit from general practitioner support? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Alongside specialist cancer clinics, general practitioners have an important role in cancer patients' follow-up care, yet no literature summarises the nature, extent and impact of their involvement. This paper addresses this issue through a review of the literature.

METHODS

Studies were sourced from six academic databases - AustHealth (n = 202), CINAHL (n = 500), the Cochrane Library (reviews and trials; n = 200), Embase (n = 368), PHCRIS (n = 132) and PubMed/Medline (n = 410). Studies that focused on interventions designed for patients receiving follow-up care and reported cancer care provided by a general practitioner delivered alongside specialist care were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 papers were identified as relevant for this review (3 randomised control trials; 4 cross-sectional, 5 cohort and 3 qualitative studies, and 3 systematic reviews). The reviewed studies indicated that providing general practitioner-led supportive interventions for post-treatment care of cancer patients is feasible and acceptable to patients. General practitioner involvement resulted in improved physical and psychosocial well-being of patients and continuity of care, especially for patients with concomitant health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Involving general practitioners in post-treatment cancer care is beneficial to patients. However, proactive initiatives that encourage and facilitate patients to consult their general practitioner about their needs or symptoms of recurrence should be considered.

Providing specialty consultant expertise to primary care: an expanding spectrum of modalities

In most models of health care delivery, the bulk of services are provided in primary care and there is frequent request for the input of specialty consultants. A critical issue for current and future health care systems is the effective and efficient delivery of specialist expertise for clinicians and patients. Input on a patient's care from specialty consultants usually requires a face-to-face visit between the patient and the consultant. New and complementary models of knowledge sharing have emerged. We describe a framework assessment of a spectrum of knowledge-sharing methods in the context of a patient-centered medical home. This framework is based on our experience in the Veterans Health Administration and a purposive review of the literature. These newer modes of specialty consultation include electronic consultation, secure text messaging, telemedicine of various types, and population preemptive consults. In addition to describing these modes of consultation, our framework points to several important areas in which further research is needed to optimize effectiveness.

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care

BACKGROUND

Subspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary care.

DESIGN

A mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs.

MEASUREMENTS

For each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, "Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?"

RESULTS

Specialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16% of patients, whereas 36% had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: 'push-back' and 'pull-back' to primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

At a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.

Early identification of palliative care needs by family physicians: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators from the perspective of family physicians, community nurses, and patients

BACKGROUND

There is a growing recognition that a palliative care approach should be initiated early and not just in the terminal phase for patients with life-limiting diseases. Family physicians then play a central role in identifying and managing palliative care needs, but appear to not identify them accurately or in a timely manner.

AIM

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the early identification by family physicians of the palliative care needs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Six focus groups (four with family physicians, n = 20, and two with community nurses, n = 12) and 18 interviews with patients with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and dementia were held. Thematic analysis was used to derive themes that covered barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Key barriers and facilitators found relate to communication styles, the perceived role of a family physician, and continuity of care. Family physicians do not systematically assess non-acute care needs, and patients do not mention them or try to mask them from the family physician. This is embedded within a predominant perception among patients, nurses, and family physicians of the family physician as the person to appeal to in acute and standard follow-up situations rather than for palliative care needs. Family physicians also seemed to pay more often attention to palliative care needs of patients in a terminal phase.

CONCLUSION

The current practice of palliative care in Belgium is far from the presently considered ideal palliative care approaches. Facilitators such as proactive communication and communication tools could contribute to the development of guidelines for family physicians and policymakers in primary care.

Involvement of the family physician in the care of chemotherapy-treated patients with cancer: patients' perspectives

PURPOSE

Increasing numbers of patients receive active ambulatory oncology treatment over prolonged periods of time. Many of these patients suffer from additional comorbidities and require comprehensive medical care. We aimed to assess the perception of patients with cancer regarding the role of the family physician and the oncologist in their care during times of active cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A survey was conducted among 265 consecutive chemotherapy-treated patients at the daycare oncology clinic.

RESULTS

All the patients were affiliated with one of four Israeli health maintenance organizations, 96% had a regular family physician, and 70% had met with him during the preceding month. Only one third of the patients thought their family physician was trained to or was willing to treat medical problems that occurred during chemotherapy treatment. Yet most patients, irrespective of clinical or socioeconomic variables, stated that involvement of the family physician was important to them. Only 30% stated that the oncologist communicated with the family physician. Accordingly, 72% of the patients stated that in the case of an urgent problem they would turn first to the oncology clinic; only 9% would consult their family physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data point to a lack of communication between team members and inadequate medical training as major barriers for comprehensive medical care for chemotherapy-treated patients with cancer. Communication between treating teams may improve medical care for oncology patients with multiple treating practitioners.

German general practitioners' views on their involvement and role in cancer care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The multidisciplinary and sequential nature of cancer care makes continuity of care for patients difficult. Cancer patients have often known their general practitioners (GPs) for years and are often in constant contact with them. Objective(s). We examined German GPs' views on their involvement in the care of cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 German GPs. Purposeful sampling was applied to secure maximum heterogeneity. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.

RESULTS

GPs perceive a clear involvement in the latter phase of cancer care but a mainly sporadic role (as and when required) in earlier phases. They think that greater care contributions from GPs are generally beneficial to cancer patients, as their ability to take the patient's history, surroundings and co-morbidities into account enables them to provide more patient-centred care. GPs want to stay involved and to know how their cancer patients are progressing, and they complain about slow or non-existent information sharing between providers, as well as insufficient care coordination. They pro-actively try to overcome these obstacles through direct contact with patients and physicians, and by building networks of trusted care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Given their long-lasting and close relationships with cancer patients, GPs are in a position to accompany them throughout the whole process of cancer care. However, such general involvement is as yet uncommon. Shared care models may have the potential to take into account the complementary character of primary and specialist care.

Are general practitioners getting the information they need from hospitals to manage their lung cancer patients? A qualitative exploration

The delivery of cancer services is primarily hospital-based; however, General Practitioners (GPs) have a key role to play within the context of a multidisciplinary model of care. In order to fulfill their role in cancer care GPs must receive complete and timely information from appropriate members of the hospital team. The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of the quality, format and timeliness of the patient information GPs receive from a multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team, and elicit how communication between the team and the GP could be improved. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with a representative sample (n=22) of members of the hospital team and a sample of GPs (n=8). A grounded theory approach was used to categorise the data. Most communications with GPs were from medical officers; however, GPs desired information from all health professional groups in the hospital-based lung cancer team. Most GPs were dissatisfied with the timing of communication. A multidisciplinary discharge summary was suggested as a means of providing both clinical and social information from the team to the GP. Further developments in electronic health records could improve access to patient information by GPs. Results from this study illustrate the need for GPs to receive information from all members of the multidisciplinary hospital team so that they may fulfill their diverse role in supporting patients through all phases of the cancer journey.

Identifying indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination: a Delphi study

AIM

Care coordination is an important aspect of the quality of cancer care but is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of valid and reliable measures. This study was conducted to identify a set of objective measures of colorectal cancer care coordination that could be included in a medical record audit tool.

METHOD

A two-stage Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among a national panel of experts about the validity of 41 potential indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination that had been identified during a literature review. The expert panel comprised 20 members from the National Health and Medical Research Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Working Party plus representatives from cancer nursing/coordination, general practice and cancer consumers.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on the validity of 15 of 41 potential indicators, including those that focused on practical aspects of communication (legibility, clarity, content and timeliness of hospital discharge letters, documentation of outcomes of multidisciplinary team meetings) and appropriateness (documentation of preoperative consultation with a stoma therapist, discussions and referrals for adjuvant therapy for appropriate patients, and treatment by an experienced colorectal surgeon). There was lack of consensus on the validity of indicators relating to access to and efficiency of services.

CONCLUSION

The study has identified a core set of measures considered to be valid indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination. A medical record audit based on these measures could be used to monitor adequacy of cancer care coordination and will complement subjective measures based on self-reported experiences of patients and carers.