Patients' views on general practitioners' role during treatment and follow-up of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

[Patients' experience of neoplasia care by their general practitioner. Qualitative study of case histories]

BACKGROUND

Little research has been done on the follow-up of patients in the active phase of treatment in primary care. This study aimed to build up a corpus of authentic clinical situations and carry out an inductive analysis of the data.

METHOD

Research in two stages: case study and qualitative analysis of verbatims. The authors conducted individual interviews using an interview guide. The questions targeted their experiences, focusing on their relationship with their general practitioner.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified. The announcement of the diagnosis was a key moment. Patients emphasised their general practitioner's responsiveness and coordination, and stressed his involvement. They consulted him regularly during the active phase of treatment, and asked for information. They felt confident. The need to facilitate access to the general practitioner was noted, particularly in the event of a real or perceived emergency.

DISCUSSION

The increase in the prevalence and incidence of cancer means that general practitioners need to be heavily involved. The authorities are advocating a strengthening of the general practitioner's "pivotal role", without clearly defining it. A perceived lack of skills may be an obstacle to general practitioner involvement. Training in cancer during the 3rd cycle of general medical studies is inadequate. By compiling and analysing a corpus of cases, it would be possible to redefine the training objectives and list the skills required to manage cancer patients.

Cancer follow-up in primary care after treatment with curative intent: Views of patients with breast and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Increased cancer survival leads to more patients requiring oncological follow-up. Debate about how best to coordinate this care has led to the proposed involvement of general practitioners (GPs) rather than continued reliance on hospital care. However, we still require patient opinions to inform this debate.

METHODS

This qualitative interview study explored opinions about organization of follow-up care of patients treated curatively for breast and colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis was applied.

RESULTS

We interviewed 29 patients and identified three themes concerning care substitution: "benefits and barriers," "requirements," and "suitable patient groups." Benefits included accessibility, continuity, contextual knowledge, and psychosocial support. Barriers included concerns about cancer-specific expertise of GPs and longer waiting times. Requirements were sufficient time and remuneration, sufficient training, clear protocols, and shared-care including efficient communication with specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

According to patients with cancer, formal GP involvement appears feasible, although important barriers must be overcome before instituting care substitution. A possible solution are personalized follow-up plans based on three-way conversations with the specialist and the GP after the initial hospital care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With adequate training, time, and remuneration, formal GP involvement could ensure more comprehensive care, possibly starting with less complex cases.

Cancer survivors' experiences of a physical activity program in primary care: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to gain insight into the experiences of, and reasons for, cancer survivors participating in a primary care PA program.

METHODS

We interviewed 17 patients from 11 Dutch GP practices. Patients were selected by purposive sampling based on their general practice, gender, educational level, motivation for PA, and change in PA. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and pseudonymized for inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three domains were identified with five themes: institutional domain: GP practice; program-specific domain: content sessions and PA, and activity tracker and goal setting; individual domain: experienced benefits, and personalized care needs. Participants valued the PA program because it was offered close to home, without additional costs, and by a trusted practice nurse familiar with the patients' medical background. Activity tracker use and goal setting motivated many participants but also led to demotivation and feelings of failure in others. Reported benefits included behavior change and favorable health outcomes. Many patients expressed the need to personalize psychological support and the program's timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to a PA program in a primary care setting is valued for its accessibility and experienced health benefits, but also seems to meet an unmet need for support in picking up life during cancer recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Primary care is important for continued care of cancer survivors. An accessible PA program in this setting may fulfil a need for not only lifestyle support but also continuing life after cancer treatment.

Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs

Background

Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).

Aim

To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.

Design and setting

A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.

Method

Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.

Results

Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients’ homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.

Conclusion

Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Worldwide, there is an increased focus on reorganizing prostate cancer survivorship care. In this study, we describe for the first time a process evaluation as part of a randomized controlled trial that is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. We found that within an RCT context, 67% patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. Patients who received primary care-based follow-up care experienced this to be more personal, efficient, and sustainable. However, patients, GPs, and specialists also indicated several challenges that are described in this study and should be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Abstract

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Diet and exercise advice and referrals for cancer survivors: an integrative review of medical and nursing perspectives

Purpose

To examine the perspectives of medical and nursing health professionals concerning their roles and responsibilities in providing dietary and exercise advice to cancer survivors, and referrals to allied health professionals.

Methods

An integrative review. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science databases, and bibliographies of relevant studies were searched from December 2011 to June 2021. All studies were eligible for inclusion. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to critically appraise included studies. Data were extracted and synthesised regarding the perspectives of medical and nursing health professionals on their roles, responsibilities, barriers, and facilitators.

Results

Twenty-one studies involving 3401 medical and nursing health professionals and 264 cancer survivors of diverse cancer types were included. Ten quantitative, nine qualitative, and two mixed-methods studies were eligible. All included studies met at least 80% of the quality criteria in the MMAT. Major findings include the following: (1) medical and nursing health professionals were unclear on their roles in providing dietary and exercise advice to cancer survivors but agreed they play a key role in referrals to dietitians and exercise professionals; (2) most cancer survivors valued the involvement of their general practitioner when receiving dietary and exercise advice.

Conclusion

Although medical and nursing health professionals understand that referrals to allied health professionals form part of their role, there is a lack of clarity regarding their roles to provide dietary and exercise advice to cancer survivors. Future studies should address barriers and facilitators of dietary and exercise advice and referral by medical and nursing health professionals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07152-w.

Roles of general practitioners in shared decision-making for patients with cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The shared decision-making (SDM) process for the treatment of pancreatic and oesophageal cancer primarily takes place with healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the hospital setting. This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on their possible roles during this SDM process, their added value and their requirements for involvement in SDM.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 GPs about their views on SDM for patients with cancer. The interviews were analysed by two researchers using an inductive open coding approach.

RESULTS

Five potential roles in SDM were described by the interviewed GPs, of which the role as 'coach' of the patient was mentioned by all. GPs see their main added value as their long-standing relationship with the patient. To be able to participate optimally in SDM, GPs indicated that they need to be kept up to date during the patient's care process and should receive enough medical information about treatment options and contextual information.

CONCLUSION

GPs see different potential roles for themselves when involved in SDM. Hospital HCPs that want to facilitate GP involvement should take the initiative, provide the GPs with enough and timely information and must be easy to consult.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

'You know where we are if you need us.' The role of primary care in supporting patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: a qualitative study

Background

Ten per cent of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy. It is known that these patients have unmet psychological support needs, and GPs are key in enabling effective coordination of care for people living with life-shortening conditions.

Aim

To explore patients’ perspectives on the role of primary care in their management, and their sources of support.

Design & setting

Inductive qualitative study of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy between 6 months and 6 years previously for pancreatic or distal biliary duct cancers. Participants were recruited by clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) from a single NHS trust in Northwest England.

Method

Semi-structured interviews, either face-to-face or via video link, were conducted with 20 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and anonymised. Thematic analysis utilised principles of constant comparison.

Results

Participants described immense treatment burden and uncertainty around the role of the GP in their ongoing care. They recognised that GPs may have little experience of patients who have undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy, but felt that GPs can play a vital role in offering support. Participants wished for emotional support postoperatively, and valued support networks including family and friends. However, they found expressing their deepest fears difficult. Participants felt they would value greater recognition by primary care of both physical and psychological sequelae of major pancreatic surgery, and the impact on their families.

Conclusion

Patients may feel themselves to be a ‘burden’ to both healthcare professionals and their own support networks following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Primary care is in a key position to proactively offer psychological support.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experience of continuity of care provided by different health professionals: A qualitative evidence synthesis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify, synthesise and characterise the available qualitative evidence on the experience of adult colorectal cancer survivors with continuity of care led by different health professionals.

BACKGROUND

The limited evidence base for effective continuity of care led by different medical staff who assist colorectal cancer survivors with their unique survivorship care hampers the development of effective interventions. Synthesising the data on survivors' experience of care led by different health professionals is critical to develop such interventions.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis using the Thomas and Harden method and the PRISMA 2020 checklist provided by the EQUATOR network were used.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through November 2020 for qualitative and mixed methods studies in English. JBI-QARI was used to undertake a quality review of the identified studies. The review findings were synthesised by a team of researchers, and the level of confidence was evaluated using GRADE-CERQual.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The identified analytical themes included experience of diversity, preference for health professionals and space for enhancement to facilitate improved medical care delivery. Colorectal cancer survivors report diverse experiences regarding continuity of care led by different providers. Specifically, they attach substantial importance to trusted relationships with providers that are closely associated with their overall care experience.

CONCLUSION

Effective communication and good rapport among stakeholders are cornerstones for addressing the complexity of ongoing care. Future interventions should include adjusting the percentage of care from different providers to deliver cost-effective and personalised continuity of care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Synthesising data on survivors' experience facilitates the development of practical approaches to increase the quality of continuity of care and may also foster the integration of providers' advantages to enable more cost-effective intervention. The limited capacity of primary care providers may be enhanced by better cooperation and communication with specialists and by additional professional cancer-related training.

The role of the general practitioner in cancer care in general and with respect to complementary and alternative medicine for patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Cancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to assess the expectations of cancer patients towards their general practitioner (GP) regarding information on and offers of CAM procedures.

METHODS

A standardised anonymous questionnaire was developed and handed out to cancer patients in GP practices and oncology clinics in Germany.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty questionnaires were evaluable. For 88.1% of the patients, it was important that their GP regularly receives information on cancer therapy. Only a minority consulted with the GP regarding diagnosis and therapy of the cancer (32.4%) or approached him about side effects of the therapy (46.9%). About one fifth of the GPs offered CAM. Before the cancer diagnosis, only 7% of the patients received a CAM offer from the GP; after the diagnosis, it was 14%. A large majority wanted the GP to offer more complementary (70.9%) and alternative (54.3%) medicine.

CONCLUSION

Our survey points to a clear mismatch of supply and demand regarding CAM for cancer patients in the primary care sector. Training for GPs on scientific evidence of as well as communication skills on CAM will be indispensable in the future to optimise the care of cancer patients by GPs.

Managing lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care: qualitative study of GPs' and patients' experiences

Background

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in males aged ≥40 years and have a considerable impact on quality of life. Management can be complex, and although most LUTS could be treated effectively in primary care, referrals to urology outpatients are increasing.

Aim

To explore GPs’ experiences of managing LUTS together with patients’ experiences of and preferences for treatment in primary care.

Design and setting

Telephone interviews were conducted with GPs and male patients presenting to primary care with bothersome LUTS.

Method

Eleven GPs and 25 male patients were purposively sampled from 20 GP practices in three UK regions: Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and South Wales. Interviews were conducted between May 2018 and January 2019, and were analysed using a framework approach.

Results

Difficulty establishing causes and differentiating between prostate and bladder symptoms were key challenges to the diagnosis of LUTS in primary care, often making treatment a process of trial and error. Pharmacological treatments were commonly ineffective and often caused side effects. Despite this, patients were generally satisfied with GP consultations and expressed a preference for treatment in primary care.

Conclusion

Managing LUTS in primary care is a more accessible option for patients. Given the challenges of LUTS diagnosis, an effective diagnostic tool for use by GPs would be beneficial. Ensuring bothersome LUTS are not dismissed as a normal part of ageing is essential in improving patients’ quality of life. Greater exploration of the role of non-pharmacological treatments is needed.

Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A systematic literature review on the role of general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To explore the general practitioners (GP's) role in providing psychosocial care for cancer survivors through a systematic literature review.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and included the studies that complied with the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two independent reviewers performed the quality appraisal and data extraction.

RESULTS

We included 33 (five qualitative, 19 observational, and nine intervention) studies; the majority of these studies focused on care for depression and anxiety (21/33). Cancer survivors were more likely to contact their GP for psychosocial problems compared with noncancer controls. Survivors were more likely to use antidepressants compared with controls, although 71% of survivors preferred depression treatment to be "talking therapy only." Overall, GPs and patients mostly agreed that GPs are the preferred healthcare provider to manage psychosocial problems. The major exception is a survivor's fear of recurrence-here, the oncologist was the preferred healthcare provider. Only two interventions effectively decreased depression or anxiety; these studies included patients who had a clinical indication for psychosocial care, were specifically designed for decreasing depression/anxiety, and consisted of a multidisciplinary team approach. The other interventions evaluated GP-led follow-up for cancer survivors and found that this did not impact the patients' levels of anxiety, depression, or distress neither negatively nor positively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors often prefer psychosocial care by their GP, and GPs generally consider they are well placed to provide this care. Although evidence on the effectiveness of psychosocial care by GPs is limited, an active multidisciplinary team approach seems key.

GP involvement after a cancer diagnosis; patients' call to improve decision support

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered important to realise personalised cancer care. Increased GP involvement after a diagnosis is advocated to improve SDM.

AIM

To explore whether patients with cancer are in need of GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM, and whether GP involvement occurs.

DESIGN & SETTING

An online national survey was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations (NFK) in May 2019.

METHOD

The survey was sent to (former) patients with cancer. Topics included GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM. Descriptive statistics and quotes were used.

RESULTS

Among 4763 (former) patients with cancer, 59% (n = 2804) expressed a need for GP involvement in cancer care. Of these patients, 79% (n = 2193) experienced GP involvement. Regarding GP involvement in SDM, 82% of patients (n = 3724) expressed that the GP should 'listen to patients' worries and considerations', 69% (n = 3130) to 'check patients' understanding of information', 66% (n = 3006) to 'discuss patients' priorities in life and the consequences of treatment options for these priorities', and 67% (n = 3045) to 'create awareness of the patient's role in the decision making'. This happened in 47%, 17%, 15% and 10% of these patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of (former) patients with cancer expressed a need for active GP involvement in cancer care. GP support in the fundamental SDM steps is presently insufficient. Therefore, GPs should be made aware of these needs and enabled to support their patients with cancer in SDM.

Colorectal cancer survivors' quality of life: a qualitative study of unmet need

OBJECTIVE

Cancer survivors' perceptions of healthcare have been identified as a predictor of quality of life (QoL) outcomes. This study aims to explore colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors' perceptions of how cancer-related healthcare affects their QoL.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 CRC survivors receiving follow-up care between 1 and 5 years post diagnosis. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five themes described the impact of healthcare experiences on CRC survivors' QoL. While cancer survivors spoke positively of their relationships with healthcare professionals, many experienced a range of unmet information and supportive care needs. Participants described a range of positive and negative experiences, as power dynamics and navigation of healthcare systems had implications for their QoL. Where negative healthcare events aligned, survivors' autonomy, dignity and confidence were undermined, and survivorship issues could be inadequately addressed. To address persistent unmet needs, survivors developed a safety net(work) of supports to bridge the gap of unmet needs in healthcare with varying outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors' experience of follow-up and healthcare can positively or negatively affect their QoL. Preparation for cancer survivorship must be incorporated into the acute phase of diagnosis and treatment and interlinked with clear pathways of survivorship care and accessible supportive care, which support survivors to be equal partners in their healthcare. Understanding cancer survivors' knowledge, expertise and mastery of their condition is essential to ensure delivery of person-centred supportive care that adequately addresses the survivor's unmet needs.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Improving communication between the general practitioner and the oncologist: a key role in coordinating care for patients suffering from cancer

Background

Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients’ perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient’s point of view.

Methods

A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital.

Results

The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP’s knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP’s ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP’s role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients’ beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP’s role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

Health care use and remaining needs for support among women with breast cancer in the first 15 months after diagnosis: the role of the GP

BACKGROUND

The number of women with breast cancer in general practice is rising. To address their needs and wishes for a referral, GPs might benefit from more insight into women's health care practices and need for additional support.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of health care use and remaining needs among women with breast cancer in the first 15 months after diagnosis.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective, observational study women with breast cancer completed a questionnaire at 6 and 15 months post-diagnosis. Medical data were retrieved through chart reviews. The prevalence of types of health care used and remaining needs related to medical, psychosocial, paramedical and supplementary service care (such as home care), was examined with descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Seven hundred forty-six women completed both questionnaires. At both assessments patients reported that they had most frequent contact with medical and paramedical providers, independent of types of treatment received. Three to fifteen percent of the patients expressed a need for more support. Prominent needs included a wish for more frequent contact with a physiotherapist, a clinical geneticist and a psychologist. Patients also wanted more help for chores around the house, particularly in the early post-treatment phase.

CONCLUSION

A small but relevant percentage of women with breast cancer report having unmet needs. GPs may need to be particularly watchful of their need for more support from specific providers. Future research into the necessity of structural needs assessment among cancer patients in general practice is warranted.

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.