The role of the general practitioner in cancer care and the effect of an extended information routine

Clinical implementation of value based healthcare: Impact on outcomes for lung cancer patients

Value based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on patient centered outcomes, by incorporating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS). Expectations on the benefits of VBHC are high, but few data are available that validate its routine use. We wanted to investigate if VBHC is feasible and beneficial for lung cancer patients in clinical practice.

METHOD

We developed a digital transmural care pathway for lung cancer patients. During systemic therapy, patients digitally reported side effects weekly. Every six weeks, quality of life was reported trough EORTC questionnaires. Case-mix variables, treatment approaches and outcome indicators were systematically collected. We evaluated the compliance of the patients with the digitally reporting system and the impact of the care pathway on patient centered outcomes such as emergency department (ED) visits, time spent on the oncology day clinic, survival and quality of death.

RESULTS

221 lung cancer patients were included in the care pathway. 3091 weekly questionnaires were digitally collected. Compliance with the weekly digital follow-up was 92%: 2835 of 3091 questionnaires were completed. Patients in the care pathway had significantly less ED visits (3.5% vs 4.8%, p 0.04) and a shorter length of stay at the day clinic (2.5 h vs 4.1 h, p < 0,05) compared to routine clinical care. In stage IV lung cancer patients, overall survival was significantly higher in the care pathway (447 days (95% CI 379-663)) compared to routine care (286 days (95% CI 191-400)) (p = 0,025).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of value based healthcare is feasible and beneficial in daily clinical care for lung cancer patients.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved.

METHODS

Thirty-one individual interviews with primary healthcare professionals (PHPs) and four focus group interviews with 39 secondary healthcare professionals (SHPs) were undertaken. We used Grol and Flottorp's theoretical models to identify barriers and facilitators in six domains: (1) physical activity programmes, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) social setting, (5) organisation and (6) law and governance.

RESULTS

In the domain of physical activity programmes, those physical activity programmes that were non-tailored to the patients' needs impeded successful implementation. In the domain of healthcare professionals, the knowledge and skills pertaining to physical activity programmes and non-commitment of healthcare professionals impeded implementation. HCPs expressed their concerns about the negative influence of the patient's social network. Most barriers occurred in the domain of organisation. The PHPs and SHPs raised concerns about ineffective collaboration and networks between hospitals. Only the PHPs raised concerns about poor communication, indeterminate roles, and lack of collaboration with SHPs. Insufficient and unclear insurance coverage of physical activity programmes was a barrier in the domain of law and governance.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the domain of organisation seems the most challenging because the collaboration, communication, networks, and interactive roles between the PHPs and SHPs are all inadequate. Survivor care plans, more use of health information technology, improved rehabilitation guidelines, and better networks might benefit implementing physical activity programmes.

Supporting carers: health care professionals in need of system improvements and education - a qualitative study

Background

Health care professionals should prevent and relieve suffering in carers of patients with advanced cancer. Despite known positive effects of systematic carer support, carers still do not receive sufficient support. Carers have reported to be less satisfied with coordination of care and involvement of the family in treatment and care decisions than patients. In a rural district of Mid-Norway, cancer palliative care services across specialist and community care were developed. Participants’ experiences and opinions were investigated as part of this development process.

Methods

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore and describe health care professionals’ experiences with carer support from their own perspective. Data were collected in focus groups. Purposeful sampling guided the inclusion. Six groups were formed with 21 professionals. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation.

Results

In the analyzis of the focus group discussions, ten categories emerged from the exploration of health care professionals’ carer support, assessment of needs, and factors hampering carer support: 1) dependent on profession, role, and context, 2) personal relationship, 3) personal skills and competence, 4) adjusted to the stage of the disease, 5) informal assessment of carers’ needs, 6) lack of education 7) lack of systems for carer consultations, 8) lack of systems for documentation, 9) lack of systems for involving GPs, and 10) lack of systematic spiritual care.

Conclusions

Health care professionals built a personal relationship with the carers as early as possible, to facilitate carer support throughout the disease trajectory. Systematic carer support was hampered by lack of education and system insufficiencies. Organizational changes were needed, including 1) education in carer support, communication, and spiritual care, 2) use of standardized care pathways, including systematic carer needs assessment, 3) systematic involvement of general practitioners, and 4) a system for documentation of clinical work with carers.

Differences in primary care providers’ and oncologists’ views on communication and coordination of care during active treatment of patients with cancer and comorbidities

Introduction

Management of comorbid diseases in patients with cancer is often unclear. The purpose of our study was to identify differences and similarities between primary care providers and oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and comorbid disease management for patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using an anonymous self-administered survey which was available to approximately 600 providers in primary care and medical oncology practicing in both outpatient and inpatient settings from March to December 2014 at three academic hospitals in New York City (Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, and Weill Cornell). Our survey instrument assessed physician knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs using a clinical vignette of a cancer patient undergoing active treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and practice details of survey responses, and univariate analyses were used to assess differences in responses between primary care providers and oncologists.

Results

The survey was completed by 203 providers, including 127 primary care providers (62.5%), 32 medical oncologists (15.8%), 11 palliative care physicians (5.4%), and 33 nurse practitioners or physician assistants (16.3%). Medical oncologists admitted more uncertainty regarding who should manage preventive care as compared to primary care providers (34.4% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.02), whereas primary care providers were more concerned about duplicated care (22.8% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.03). Both primary care providers and medical oncologists agreed that diabetes should be actively managed during cancer treatment. More primary care providers felt less strict glycemic control was allowable (56.8% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.05) and that it is allowable for patients to miss some diabetes-related visits (80.6% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Primary care providers and medical oncologists differ in their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and management of comorbid conditions in patients undergoing cancer treatment. These differences reflect systemic challenges to provision of care to cancer patients and the need for a model of care coordination.

Optimal cancer care: what essential elements of care would help haematological cancer patients obtain and understand information about their disease and its treatment and impact?

PURPOSE

To describe the perceptions of haematological cancer patients about the components of care deemed essential to supporting them to obtain and understand information about their cancer, its treatment and its impact on their life.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with individuals diagnosed with haematological cancer. Eligible patients presenting for a scheduled outpatient appointment were invited to complete a pen-and-paper survey in the clinic waiting room while waiting for their appointment. Those who completed the survey were mailed a second survey approximately 4 weeks later. Participants provided data about their demographic and disease characteristics and perceptions of optimal care for haematological cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients completed both surveys and were included in the analysis. The items endorsed as essential components of care by the highest number of participants were being able to share accurate information about their disease, treatment and ongoing care with their GP/family doctor (49%); being able to obtain up-to-date information specific to their circumstances (43%); being able to obtain information in the amount of detail that they want (34%); being able to call a health care professional at the treatment centre where they are receiving care (34%) and being able to call an experienced health care professional who has knowledge of their disease and its treatment (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to determine ways of meeting the preferences of haematological cancer patients and determining the associated impact on patient outcomes.

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.

Characteristics and outcome of unplanned hospital admissions in patients with lung cancer: a longitudinal tertiary center study. Towards a strategy to reduce the burden

BACKGROUND

Unplanned hospital admissions (UHAs) are frequent in lung cancer, but literature on this topic is scarce. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the demographics, patterns of referral, causes, presenting symptoms, and final outcome of these UHAs. A strategy to improve quality of care and reduce the number and cost of UHAs was suggested based upon these findings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In retrospective analysis of all consecutive UHAs in a 6-month period in a tertiary center, demographics, pattern of referral, clinical data, tumor control status, final diagnosis, duration of hospitalization, and outcome were examined.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven UHAs were recorded. Male/female ratio was 185/62, mean age 65.5 years, performance status (PS) on admission 0-1 in 32 %, 2 in 37.2 %, and 3-4 in 30.8 % of patients. Patient referral occurred by general practitioner in 33.6 % or specialist in 25.5 % and in 40.9 % on own initiative. UHAs were therapy-related in 23.9 %, cancer-related in 47.4 %, comorbidity-related in 19.4 %, or of unclear nature in 9.3 %. Most frequent causes were infections (21.9 %) and respiratory problems (17.0 %). Mean length of stay was 9.5 days. Final outcome was 10.1 % mortality, 6.9 % hospice care transfers, and 79.4 % home returns (including 18.2 % same day returns).

CONCLUSION

UHAs in lung cancer were more cancer- than therapy-related. Majority of patients (2/3) were not seen by their general practitioner. A significant number of same day returns were noted. UHAs in patients with poor PS, uncontrolled cancer and cancer-related events had the worst outcome. This work is a first step in identifying specific characteristics of UHAs in lung cancer patients, which may lead to strategies to reduce the burden of UHAs.

A randomized controlled trial of hospital-based case management in cancer care: a general practitioner perspective

BACKGROUND

Case management (CM) models based on experienced nurses are increasingly used to improve coordination and continuity of care for patients with complex health care needs. Anyway, little is known about the effects of hospital-based CM in cancer care. Aim. To analyse the effects of hospital-based CM on (i) GPs' evaluation of information from the hospital and collaboration with the hospital staff and (ii) patients' contacts with GPs during daytime and out of hours.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial allocated 280 colorectal cancer patients 1:1 to either a control group or CM intervention.

SETTING

Patients were recruited at a Danish surgical department.

METHODS

An ad hoc piloted questionnaire was sent to all patients' GPs 30 weeks after patients' recruitment and the responses from the two groups of GPs were compared. Registry data on patients' contacts with general practice during daytime and out of hours were collected 9 months after recruitment and the data from the two groups were compared quarterly.

RESULTS

CM was associated with an overall tendency towards more positive GP evaluations, which for 3 of 20 items reached statistical significance. Statistically significantly fewer GPs of CM patients reported contacting the hospital. CM did not affect the number of patient contacts with the GPs during the daytime, but CM patients showed a tendency towards more contacts to the out-of-hours GP services than non-CM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CM was appreciated by the GPs and reduced their need for subsequent hospital contact. CM increased the number of patient contacts to the out-of-hours GP services.

A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients' satisfaction with their general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients' satisfaction with their GPs.

DESIGN

A cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group.

INTERVENTION

The intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients' current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients' rehabilitation course.

OUTCOME MEASURES

6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients' rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study.

RESULTS

No overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

This complex intervention aiming at improving GPs' services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.

Interventions to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Care from the family physician is generally interrupted when patients with cancer come under the care of second-line and third-line healthcare professionals who may also manage the patient's comorbid conditions. This situation may lead to fragmented and uncoordinated care, and results in an increased likelihood of not receiving recommended preventive services or recommended care.

OBJECTIVES

To classify, describe and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve continuity of cancer care on patient, healthcare provider and process outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, using a strategy incorporating an EPOC Methodological filter. Reference lists of the included study reports and relevant reviews were also scanned, and ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to identify relevant reports having cited the studies included in this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (including cluster trials), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series evaluating interventions to improve continuity of cancer care were considered for inclusion. We included studies that involved a majority (> 50%) of adults with cancer or healthcare providers of adults with cancer. Primary outcomes considered for inclusion were the processes of healthcare services, objectively measured healthcare professional, informal carer and patient outcomes, and self-reported measures performed with scales deemed valid and reliable. Healthcare professional satisfaction was included as a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers described the interventions, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The authors contacted several investigators to obtain missing information. Interventions were regrouped by type of continuity targeted, model of care or interventional strategy and were compared to usual care. Given the expected clinical and methodological diversity, median changes in outcomes (and bootstrap confidence intervals) among groups of studies that shared specific features of interest were chosen to analyse the effectiveness of included interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included. They used three different models, namely case management, shared care, and interdisciplinary teams. Six additional interventional strategies were used besides these models: (1) patient-held record, (2) telephone follow-up, (3) communication and case discussion between distant healthcare professionals, (4) change in medical record system, (5) care protocols, directives and guidelines, and (6) coordination of assessments and treatment.Based on the median effect size estimates, no significant difference in patient health-related outcomes was found between patients assigned to interventions and those assigned to usual care. A limited number of studies reported psychological health, satisfaction of providers, or process of care measures. However, they could not be regrouped to calculate median effect size estimates because of a high heterogeneity among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from this Cochrane review do not allow us to conclude on the effectiveness of included interventions to improve continuity of care on patient, healthcare provider or process of care outcomes. Future research should evaluate interventions that target an improvement in continuity as their primary objective and describe these interventions with the categories proposed in this review. Also of importance, continuity measures should be validated with persons with cancer who have been followed in various settings.

Excess of health care use in general practice and of comorbid chronic conditions in cancer patients compared to controls

Background

The number of cancer patients and the number of patients surviving initial treatments is expected to rise. Traditionally, follow-up monitoring takes place in secondary care. The contribution of general practice is less visible and not clearly defined.

This study aimed to compare healthcare use in general practice of patients with cancer during the follow-up phase compared with patients without cancer. We also examined the influence of comorbid conditions on healthcare utilisation by these patients in general practice.

Methods

We compared health care use of N=8,703 cancer patients with an age and gender-matched control group of patients without cancer from the same practice. Data originate from the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH), a representative network consisting of 92 general practices with 350,000 enlisted patients. Health care utilisation was assessed using data on contacts with general practice, prescription and referral rates recorded between 1/1/2001 and 31/12/2007. The existence of additional comorbid chronic conditions (ICPC coded) was taken into account.

Results

Compared to matched controls, cancer patients had more contacts with their GP-practice (19.5 vs. 11.9, p<.01), more consultations with the GP (3.5 vs. 2.7, p<.01), more home visits (1.6 vs. 0.4, p<.01) and they got more medicines prescribed (18.7 vs. 11.6, p<.01) during the follow-up phase. Cancer patients more often had a chronic condition than their matched controls (52% vs. 44%, p<.01). Having a chronic condition increased health care use for both patients with and without cancer. Cancer patients with a comorbid condition had the highest health care use.

Conclusion

We found that cancer patients in the follow-up phase consulted general practice more often and suffered more often from comorbid chronic conditions, compared to patients without cancer. It is expected that the number of cancer patients will rise in the years to come and that primary health care professionals will be more involved in follow-up care. Care for comorbid chronic conditions, communication between specialists and GPs, and coordination of tasks then need special attention.

Enhanced involvement of general practitioners in cancer rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that a multimodal intervention giving the general practitioner (GP) an enhanced role in cancer rehabilitation improves patients' health-related quality of life and psychological distress.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention group or to a control group. Patients were subsequently allocated to intervention or control (usual procedures) based on the randomisation status of their GP.

SETTING

All clinical departments at a public regional hospital treating cancer patients and all general practices in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients treated for incident cancer at Vejle Hospital, Denmark, between 12 May 2008 and 28 February 2009. A total of 955 patients (486 to the intervention group and 469 to the control group) registered with 323 general practices were included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention included an interview about rehabilitation needs with a rehabilitation coordinator at the regional hospital, information from the hospital to the GP about individual needs for rehabilitation and an encouragement of the GP to contact the patient to offer his support with rehabilitation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured 6 months after inclusion using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes included quality of life at 14 months and additional subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at 6 and 14 months and psychological distress at 14 months using the Profile of Mood States Scale.

RESULTS

No effect of the intervention was observed on primary and/or secondary outcomes after 6 and 14 months.

CONCLUSION

A multimodal intervention aiming to give the GP an enhanced role in cancer patients' rehabilitation did not improve quality of life or psychological distress.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.

Toward shared care for people with cancer: developing the model with patients and GPs

BACKGROUND

The number of people surviving cancer for extended periods is increasing. Consequently, due to workload and quality issues, there is considerable interest in alternatives to traditional secondary care-led cancer follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views of potential recipients of shared follow-up of cancer. To conduct a modelling exercise for shared follow-up and to explore the opinions and experiences of both the patients and GPs involved.

METHODS

Semi-structured audio-taped telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 patients with a range of cancers currently attending for structured follow-up in secondary care. Six GPs and five patients (four with melanoma and one with stable metastatic colorectal cancer) took part in a shared follow-up modelling exercise. During the modelling exercise, the GPs attended 4 review meetings, which included brief training seminars, and at the conclusion 10 individuals took part in semi-structured audio-taped telephone or face-to-face interviews.

RESULTS

Many rural patients, and some urban patients, would appreciate follow-up being available nearer to home with the associated benefits of time saved and easier parking and continuity of care. Patients have concerns related to the level of extra training received by the GP and loss of contact with their consultant. GPs have concerns about gaining and maintaining the clinical skills needed to conduct follow-up, especially if the numbers of patients seen are small. They also have concerns about lack of support from other GPs, and some administrative and organizational issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients would be willing to have GPs share their cancer follow-up with the caveat that they had received extra training and were appropriately supported by secondary care specialists. Patients attending shared care clinics appreciated a local service and longer appointment times. GPs stress the importance of maintaining their own clinical skills and reliable clinical and administrative support from secondary care.

A complex intervention to enhance the involvement of general practitioners in cancer rehabilitation. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial and feasibility study of a multimodal intervention

BACKGROUND

The effect of interventions that support rehabilitation among cancer patients has to be tested before implementation.

OBJECTIVE

A randomised controlled trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that a multimodal intervention may give the general practitioner (GP) an enhanced role and improve rehabilitation for cancer patients. The intervention included an interview about rehabilitation needs with a rehabilitation coordinator (RC), information from the hospital to the general practitioner about individual needs for rehabilitation and an incentive for the GP to contact the patient about rehabilitation. The objective of this first report from the study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adult patients treated for incident cancer at Vejle Hospital, Denmark were included between May 12, 2008 and February 28, 2009. All general practices in Denmark were randomised. Patients were allocated to intervention or control (usual procedures) based on the randomisation status of their GP. The feasibility of the intervention was analysed with regard to recruitment of patients, acceptability by patients and GPs and the degree to which the planned contacts between patients, RCs and GPs were implemented. The primary outcome of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be health-related quality of life at six months (EORTC-30).

RESULTS

Following assessment of 1 896 cancer patients, 955 patients (50%) registered with 323 general practices were included. The interview was conducted at the hospital with 50% of the patients in the intervention group, 31% were contacted by phone. Patients valued the fact that the conversation was dedicated to needs beyond the medical treatment. The GPs were generally available for information by phone and positive towards having a central role in the cancer rehabilitation.

DISCUSSION

It was feasible to conduct a RCT to evaluate a complex intervention in the healthcare system. All elements of the intervention were acceptable and feasible and may be implemented in future practice if the effect is positive.

Receipt of general medical care by colorectal cancer patients: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

cancer diagnosis has the potential to overshadow patients' general medical care needs. This study examined changes in general medical care among elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), from before diagnosis through long-term survival.

METHODS

this longitudinal cohort study used 1993 to 1999 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and 1991 to 2001 Medicare claims data for 22,161 patients with stage 0 to 3 CRC and 81,669 controls aged 67 to 89 years. Outcomes were preventive services (influenza vaccination, mammography) and, among diabetics, HgbA1c and lipid testing in the phase before diagnosis, the phase after initial treatment, the surveillance phase, and the survival care phase. Logistic regression provided adjusted relative risks of care receipt for patients with stage 0 to 1 cancer, stage 2 to 3 cancer, and no cancer.

RESULTS

in the phase before diagnosis through the surveillance phase, patients with stage 0 to 1 CRC had the highest annual preventive service rates. Patients with stage 2 to 3 CRC made substantial gains in preventive service use, especially mammography, after diagnosis (influenza vaccination, 46.4% before diagnosis to 50.2% after initial treatment; mammography, 31.4% before diagnosis to 40.2% after initial treatment) but not in diabetes care (eg, HgbA1c, 53.4% before diagnosis to 54.9% after initial treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC diagnosis seems to facilitate receipt of preventive services but not diabetes care for elderly, later-stage patients. Additional strategies such as strengthening partnerships between cancer patients, primary care physicians, and cancer care physicians are needed to improve care for a chronic disease like diabetes.

A doctor close at hand: How GPs view their role in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

To explore GPs' own views on their role in cancer care.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Norwegian primary care.

METHODS

The stories of 14 GPs concerning 18 patients were analyzed for core content and abstracted into general ideas, to create a broader sense of the experienced professional role.

RESULTS

The GPs claimed to have an important role in cancer care. In our analysis, three main aspects of GPs' work emerged: first, as a flexible mediator, e.g. between the patient and the clinic, interpreting and translating; second, as an efficient "handyman", solving practical problems locally; and third, as a personal companion for the patient throughout the illness.

CONCLUSION

The interviewed GPs see their place in cancer care as being close to their patients. In their many tasks we found three main aspects: the mediating, the practical, and the personal.

Family physician involvement in cancer care follow-up: the experience of a cohort of patients with lung cancer

PURPOSE

There has been little research describing the involvement of family physicians in the follow-up of patients with cancer, especially during the primary treatment phase. We undertook a prospective longitudinal study of patients with lung cancer to assess their family physician's involvement in their follow-up at the different phases of cancer.

METHODS

In 5 hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada, patients with a recent diagnosis of lung cancer were surveyed every 3 to 6 months, whether they had metastasis or not, for a maximum of 18 months, to assess aspects of their family physician's involvement in cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 395 participating patients, 92% had a regular family physician but only 60% had been referred to a specialist by him/her or a colleague for the diagnosis of their lung cancer. A majority of patients identified the oncology team or oncologists as mainly responsible for their cancer care throughout their cancer journey, except at the advanced phase, where a majority attributed this role to their family physician. At baseline, only 16% of patients perceived a shared care pattern between their family physician and oncologists, but this proportion increased with cancer progression. Most patients would have liked their family physician to be more involved in all aspects of cancer care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients perceive that the oncology team is the main party responsible for the follow-up of their lung cancer, they also wish their family physicians to be involved. Better communication and collaboration between family physicians and the oncology team are needed to facilitate shared care in cancer follow-up.

The interface of primary and oncology specialty care: from diagnosis through primary treatment

In this article, we review the challenges and opportunities related to developing effective, collaborative relationships between primary care and oncology providers during the initial cancer treatment period. This point in the cancer care continuum is complex and often represents the first major transition in care between primary care providers and oncology specialists. Patients often receive care from multiple providers in a number of different settings and are faced with making treatment decisions in a short, concentrated period of time. Patients consistently report having significant informational and emotional needs that are often unmet during this period. Using the published literature, we have identified a number of challenges during this part of the treatment continuum that may limit providers' ability to deliver effective care, including provider care discontinuities, information exchange problems, and gaps in provider role clarity that may be especially problematic within the context of managing comorbid health conditions. The limited published literature specific to this step in the cancer care trajectory supports the importance of ongoing primary care-specialist collaboration during this phase in the care continuum for both medical and psychosocial care. How to best achieve effective collaboration between providers requires further research in information exchange and tools to support it, evaluation of shared care models specific to the cancer context, and studies of the potential role of multidisciplinary case conferencing that include the primary care provider.

What Information Do General Practitioners Need to Care for Patients with Lung Cancer? A Survey of General Practitioners Perceptions

General practitioners (GPs) are an integral part of the multidisciplinary team that care for patients with lung cancer. It is essential that patient information including results of tests, management plans, treatment, and follow-up arrangements are communicated between hospital-based carers and the community-based GR. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views about the information they need from hospital-based health professionals in the management of their patients with lung cancer. This exploration is undertaken within the context of a multidisciplinary model of care, a relatively new concept in service delivery for cancer patients. Data were collected using a questionnaire that was distributed to the population of 433 GPs from one Australian regional Division of General Practice. Questions related to from whom, what, when and how GPs would like to receive information from the multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team. GPs reported that they wanted information from all members of the multidisciplinary hospital-based lung cancer team, not just physicians. The key triggers for communication included: any change in the patient's condition; following initial outpatient visit; at admission and discharge; and following treatment milestones. Both medical and social information were seen as important to GPs and there was strong support to receive information electronically. This study illustrates the desire by GPs to receive information from all members of the hospital-based lung cancer team if it is relevant to the ongoing care of their patient. Technology-enabled solutions, such as an electronic multidisciplinary discharge summary, the electronic health record and the person-controlled electronic health record, offer strategies to improve both timeliness and access to information.

Views of primary care physicians and oncologists on cancer follow-up initiatives in primary care: an online survey

INTRODUCTION

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are playing an increasing role in the follow-up of cancer in England. In 2003 a Cancer Care Review (CCR) was introduced to ensure contact between PCPs and cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis. The NHS also intends to introduce survivorship care plans (SCP). The aims of this study were to: describe current practice and views in primary care with respect to the CCR and information provision from secondary to primary care following final discharge from hospital follow-up; and to seek views on the perceived usefulness, content, and feasibility of a SCP.

METHODS

An on-line questionnaire survey of 100 oncologists and 200 PCPs.

RESULTS

Half of PCPs undertook the CCR opportunistically, and only 64% had an agreed structure. Forty percent felt the CCR was useful for the doctor, and 60% useful for the patient. Most PCPs and oncologists think a SCP would be useful, but only 40% oncologists thought that it would be easy to produce. At discharge from follow-up, more than half of oncologists said they provided information on histology, treatment, requirements for screening and surveillance, and referral guidance. Less than half provide information on potential late effects and symptoms of recurrence. PCPs felt that information on all of these areas was important and that the information they receive is often inadequate.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

The CCR has not been implemented systematically. There is support for the introduction of a SCP and broad agreement on content. However, careful planning is needed to ensure all necessary information is included and to overcome barriers of implementation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Further research should explore what cancer survivors would find useful in a primary care-based CCR and what should be included in a SCP. This should be clearly communicated to the relevant health care professionals to maximise the benefits cancer survivors and their families gain from these policy initiatives.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer follow-up places a significant burden on hospital outpatient clinics. There are increasing calls to develop alternative models of provision.

AIM

To undertake a systematic review of qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views about cancer follow-up.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care.

METHOD

Comprehensive literature searches included: 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies included qualitative studies examining patients' and healthcare professionals' views of cancer follow-up. Studies of patients with any type of cancer, considered free of active disease, or no longer receiving active treatment were included. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included; seven were linked to randomised controlled trials. Eight studies examined the views of healthcare professionals (four of which included GPs) and 16 examined the views of patients. Twelve descriptive themes were identified, from which 12 perceived implications for practice were derived. Most themes related to conventional follow-up in secondary care. Some views concerning other models of care were based on participants' ideas, rather than experiences.

CONCLUSION

Patients' main concern is recurrent disease, and they find regular follow-up, expertise of specialists, and quick access to tests reassuring. Information regarding the effectiveness of follow-up is not given to patients who also have unmet information needs, which would help them to cope and be more involved. Continuity of care, unhurried consultations, and psychosocial support are important, but sometimes lacking in secondary care. GPs are thought to be unwilling and to have insufficient time and expertise to conduct follow-up.

GP-led melanoma follow-up: the practical experience of GPs

OBJECTIVES

To explore how GP-led melanoma follow-up had actually worked from the perspective of GPs by exploring in detail the practical experience of GPs running the programme.

DESIGN

Semi-structured audio-taped telephone interviews with GPs delivering a GP-led follow-up programme for people with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

SUBJECTS

Seventeen GPs currently delivering structured GP-led routine follow-up for people with cutaneous melanoma.

RESULTS

GP-led melanoma follow-up worked well from the perspectives of GPs. The GPs felt that they were well equipped and supported in undertaking the follow-up consultations and recognized that they were freeing up hospital consultant time. They felt that patients appreciated the convenience of GP-led follow-up. The GPs felt that a robust recall system, initial training with regular refreshers and effective consultant backup were vital components of a successful long-term programme.

CONCLUSIONS

GP-led melanoma follow-up is feasible and, provided certain concerns can be addressed, GPs are willing to provide it.

Utilisation of specialist care in patients with incurable rectal cancer. a population-based study from Western Norway

INTRODUCTION

About 25% of patients with rectal cancer have incurable disease at the time of diagnosis. In the current study from Western Norway (population of 981 000) we focused on the utilisation of specialist care in patients with primarily incurable rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2002, 1 167 patients were diagnosed with rectal cancer, of whom 297 (25%) had incurable disease, according to consecutive and prospective reporting to the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Consumption of specialist care facilities was studied with regard to outpatient contacts, hospital admissions, and various treatment modalities. Data were analysed with regard to age, sex, marital status, type of residence, and geographical access to hospital facilities. Data were available for 287 patients (97%).

RESULTS

The median age was 77 years. Elderly patients (>77 years) more often lived in nursing homes without a spouse. About 60% of the patients were treated with major surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, either alone or in combination. Of those who did not receive such treatment, 87% were elderly. Oncological treatment, either alone or combined with surgery, predicted increased hospital admissions and outpatient contacts. Age >77 years predicted fewer hospital admissions. Survival varied statistically significantly with the various treatment modalities, and was highest for major resections combined with oncological treatment. The majority of the patients living at home died in hospitals (54%) and only 26% died in their homes, while two-thirds of residents of nursing homes died there.

DISCUSSION

Patients with primary incurable rectal cancer are heterogeneous with regard to their needs of treatment. While younger patients receive extensive tumour-related treatment, elderly patients are most commonly treated according to their symptoms. Prospective studies of the effect of various treatment options on the ease of symptoms and improved quality of life in unselected populations are needed.

A rural/urban comparison of the roles of the general practitioner in colorectal cancer management

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare the roles of urban, rural and remote general practitioners (GPs) in colorectal cancer (CRC) management.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews exploring GP views of their role in CRC management.

SETTING

Urban, rural and remote general practices in north Queensland.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen GPs in urban, rural and remote practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported roles in the management of CRC patients and factors influencing these roles.

RESULTS

All GPs, regardless of location of practice, played a role in diagnosis, referral, postoperative care, psychosocial counselling, follow up and palliative care. Involvement in treatment of CRC patients was only performed by remote GPs. In general, rural and remote GPs played greater roles in care coordination, clinical and psychosocial care. Rural and remote GPs were more heavily involved throughout the entire illness progression when compared with their urban counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that rural and remote GPs in north Queensland play a greater role than urban GPs in the management of CRC. In order to maintain and enhance the roles of rural and remote GPs in CRC care, appropriate guidelines and remuneration should be provided. Palliative care support might also be useful to rural and remote GPs.

Tailored chemotherapy information faxed to general practitioners improves confidence in managing adverse effects and satisfaction with shared care: results from a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

General practitioners (GPs) play a critical role in the treatment of patients with cancer; yet often lack information for optimal care. We developed standardized information for GPs about chemotherapy (CT). In a randomized controlled trial we assessed the impact of sending, by fax, information tailored to the particular patient's CT regimen. Primary end points were: confidence treating patients who were receiving CT (confidence), knowledge of adverse effects and reasons to refer the patient to the treatment center (knowledge), and satisfaction with information and shared care of patients (satisfaction).

METHODS

Focus group work informed the development of the CT information which focused on potential adverse effects and recommended management strategies. GPs of patients due to commence CT were randomly assigned to receive usual correspondence with or without the faxed patient/regimen-specific information. Telephone questionnaire at baseline and 1 week postintervention assessed knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven GPs managed 97 patients receiving 23 types of CT. Eighty-one (83.5%) completed the follow-up questionnaire. GPs in the intervention group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in confidence (mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.47) and satisfaction (mean difference, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.88) compared with usual care, reflecting a 7.1% and 10.5% difference in score, respectively. No differences were detected for knowledge. GPs receiving the CT sheet found correspondence significantly more useful (P < .001) and instructive (P < .001) than GPs who received standard correspondence alone.

CONCLUSION

Information about CT faxed to GPs is a simple, inexpensive intervention that increases confidence managing CT adverse effects and satisfaction with shared care. This intervention could have widespread application.

"When patients have cancer, they stop seeing me"--the role of the general practitioner in early follow-up of patients with cancer--a qualitative study

Background

The role of the general practitioner (GP) in cancer follow-up is poorly defined. We wanted to describe and analyse the role of the GP during initial follow-up of patients with recently treated cancer, from the perspective of patients, their relatives and their GPs.

Methods

One focus group interview with six GPs from the city of Bodø and individual interviews with 17 GPs from the city of Tromsø in North Norway. Text analysis of the transcribed interviews and of free text comments in two questionnaires from 91 patients with cancer diagnosed between October 1999 and September 2000 and their relatives from Tromsø.

Results

The role of the GP in follow-up of patients with recently treated cancer is discussed under five main headings: patient involvement, treating the cancer and treating the patient, time and accessibility, limits to competence, and the GP and the hospital should work together.

Conclusion

The GP has a place in the follow-up of many patients with cancer, also in the initial phase after treatment. Patients trust their GP to provide competent care, especially when they have more complex health care needs on top of their cancer. GPs agree to take a more prominent role for cancer patients, provided there is good access to specialist advice. Plans for follow-up of individual patients could in many cases improve care and cooperation. Such plans could be made preferably before discharge from in-patient care by a team consisting of the patient, a carer, a hospital specialist and a general practitioner. Patients and GPs call on hospital doctors to initiate such collaboration.

Reduced utilisation of specialist care among elderly cancer patients: a randomised study of a primary healthcare intervention

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an individual support (IS) intervention including intensified primary healthcare on the utilisation of specialist care among cancer patients, and to investigate if such an effect was modified by the patient's age (less than 70 years or 70 years and more). Newly diagnosed cancer patients (n=416) were randomised between the intervention and a control condition, and data were collected on the utilisation of specialist care within 3 months from inclusion. Intensified primary healthcare comprised extended information from the specialist clinics, and education and supervision in cancer care for general practitioners (GPs) and home-care nurses. The support given also included interventions designed to diminish problems of weight loss and psychological distress. The intervention reduced the number of admissions (NoA) and the days of hospitalisation (DoH) after adjustment for weight loss and psychological distress, but only for older patients. Older patients randomised to the intervention (n=82) experienced 393 fewer DoH than the older control patients (n=79). In addition, the proportion of older patients in the IS group who utilised acute specialist care was smaller compared with older control patients group. The conclusion is that older cancer patients' utilisation of specialist care may be reduced by intensified primary healthcare services.