General practitioners' involvement during survivorship care of colon cancer in the Netherlands: primary health care utilization during survivorship care of colon cancer, a prospective multicentre cohort study

Application Value of High-Quality Nursing in Operating Room in Rectal Cancer Operation and its Influence on Postoperative Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To study the value of high-quality care in operating room during operation of patients with rectal cancer and the effect of this nursing model on postoperative rehabilitation.

METHODS

This study recruited 72 patients with rectal cancer, including 36 in the control group and 36 in the observation group. Patients in the control group received routine care, and those in the observation group received high-quality care in operating room.

RESULTS

The anxiety score (5.50 ± .77 vs 10. 08 ± 1.13), stress score (6.97 ± .60 vs 8.61 ± .99), and depression score (4.02 ± .65 vs 5.50 ± .91) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The measured values of diastolic blood pressure (73.19 ± 1.96 vs 86.13 ± 2.0), systolic blood pressure (121.08 ± 1.62 vs 130.63 ± 2.84), heart rate (73.05 ± 1.63 vs 87.11 ± 2.91) and adrenaline E(E) (58.40 ± 3.02 vs 61.42 ± 3.86) in the observation group were less than the control group after treatment (P < .05). The cooperation degree (94.44 vs 75.00) in the observation group was greater than the control group, but the operation time (308.47 ± 9.92 vs 339.47 ± 12.70), postoperative intestinal function recovery time (16.30 ± 1.14 vs 30.94 ± 2.10) and length of stay (10.47 ± 1.85 vs 13.33 ± 1.95) were all shorter than the control group (P < .05). The nasopharyngeal temperature in the observation group was greater than the control group at 30 minutes during operation (36.16 ± .50 vs 35.19 ± .40) and after operation, and fear score (2.22 ± .42 vs 3.63 ± .72) was less than the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The application of high-quality care in the operating room during rectal cancer surgery has a significantly good clinical outcome.

Experiences and perspectives of colorectal cancer survivors and general practitioners on the delivery of survivorship care in general practice: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Many colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience ongoing sequelae from their cancer treatment. Limited evidence exists regarding how CRC survivors and general practitioners (GPs) manage these sequelae in the community. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of CRC survivors and GPs on current approaches to monitoring and managing sequelae of CRC treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study using cross-sectional national surveys and qualitative interviews with CRC survivors and GPs to explore: (1) treatment sequelae experienced by CRC survivors, (2) how these were monitored and managed by general practitioners, and (3) suggestions to improve ongoing management of the treatment sequelae. Survey responses were reported descriptively. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using an interpretive descriptive approach.

RESULTS

Seventy participants completed surveys: 51 CRC survivors and 19 GPs, and four interviews were conducted with GPs. CRC survivors experienced a range of treatment sequelae, but often did not discuss these with their GPs (experienced vs discussed: 86% vs 47% for fatigue/lack of energy, 78% vs 27% for psychological/emotional concern, 63% vs 22% for impaired sleep, 69% vs 29% for weight loss/gain, 59% vs 16% for sexual and intimacy concerns). GPs reported inadequate information transfer from cancer services and workload as major barriers to optimal care.

CONCLUSIONS

System-level changes that facilitate adequate information transfer from cancer services to GPs upon CRC treatment completion, as well as addressing time constraint issues essential for comprehensive monitoring and management of CRC treatment sequelae, could enhance the care of CRC survivors in the community setting.

Experiences of cancer survivors with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in the Netherlands: symptoms, daily limitations, involvement of healthcare professionals, and social support

PURPOSE

A significant proportion of cancer patients suffer from chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). This descriptive study aimed to examine patients' experience of CIPN symptoms, daily limitations, involvement of healthcare professionals, and social support.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data have been collected in the Netherlands via a national online questionnaire comprising closed items only (February 2021).

RESULTS

Out of 3752 respondents, 1975 received chemotherapy only (i.e., without targeted therapy) and were therefore included. The majority (71.2%) reported symptoms in both hands and feet (e.g., tingling and loss of sensation or diminished sensation). Participants reported most limitations in household chores, social activities, hobbies, sports, walking, and sleeping and least in family/(taking care of) children, cycling, driving, self-care, eating and drinking, and sexuality and intimacy. Many patients indicated that their healthcare professionals informed them about the possibility of CIPN development before treatment (58.4%), and they paid attention to CIPN during and after treatment (53.1%). However, many patients (43%) reported a lack of information on what to do when CIPN develops. Few participants (22%) visited their general practitioner (GP) for CIPN. In general, patients' social environments sometimes to always showed empathy to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms of CIPN are frequently reported and can result in various daily limitations. Support from professionals and peers is crucial in managing CIPN, which is sometimes lacking. Appropriate guidance and support should be provided to patients to decrease the impact of CIPN on daily life. Future research should investigate differences in chemotherapeutic agents and the resulting symptoms and consequences.

The role of primary care in the cancer care continuum: a qualitative study of cancer survivors' experiences

OBJECTIVE

To explore how cancer survivors have experienced their contacts with primary care after being diagnosed with cancer, focusing on the integration between cancer specialist and primary care, and participants' views on what could make primary care services better at catering to the needs of cancer survivors.

DESIGN

A qualitative study in which data was collected through semi-structured digital focus group interviews and analyzed using a template analysis approach.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Adult residents of Skåne, Sweden, who had been diagnosed with and initiated treatment for either of five common cancer forms, recruited through patient advocacy groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A qualitative description of participants' experiences and perceptions as expressed in focus group interview data.

RESULTS

Most participants felt that primary care services had not played a significant role for them, despite patterns of both increased and unmet health needs. Insufficient coordination and communication with specialist cancer care, low availability, lacking personal continuity, low cancer competence and lacking commitment to cancer-related needs were presented as barriers to satisfactory primary care. A strengthened bond between cancer and primary care services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were all suggested as measures to make primary care more suitable to cancer survivors' needs.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that cancer survivors experience a range of issues that hinders primary care services from playing a productive role in the cancer care process. The results speak for a need for interventions to remove barriers to satisfactory primary care contacts in this group of patients.KEY POINTSThe growing number of cancer survivors highlights the role of primary care services in the cancer care continuum.Despite the presence of unmet needs, few cancer survivors felt that primary care services had been significant to their care.Survivors identified a number of barriers to satisfactory primary care, including lacking coordination and communication between cancer and primary care.Strengthened links between healthcare services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were suggested to improve primary care delivery for cancer survivors.

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.

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care

OBJECTIVES

The I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed.

SETTING

Patients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients treated with curative intent for stages I-III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed.

RESULTS

Out of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4860.

Effects of comprehensive care on psychological emotions, postoperative rehabilitation and complications of colorectal cancer patients after colostomy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the impacts of comprehensive care on psychological emotion, postoperative rehabilitation and complications of colorectal cancer patients after colostomy.

METHODS

From August 2018 to February 2020, a total of sixty colorectal cancer patients undergoing colostomy in our hospital were collected and randomly assigned to a control group to receive conventional care and a research group to receive comprehensive care, with 30 patients in each group. The two groups of patients were compared for postoperative recovery, complications, adverse psychological emotions, self-care ability, quality of life, and nursing satisfaction.

RESULTS

The first time of exhaust, food intake and the recovery of bowel sound in the research group were markedly earlier than those in the control group. Besides, the research group had notably lower incidence of postoperative complications, lower self-anxiety scale (SAS) and self-depression scale (SDS) scores at discharge, and higher average self-care ability than the control group, as well as higher quality of life score and nursing satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive care intervention can promote postoperative recovery of colorectal cancer patients after colostomy, relieve their negative emotions, reduce postoperative complications, improve quality of life and nursing satisfaction, which are all important and make this type of care worthy of promotion in clinical practice.

Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review

Background

Cancer survivorship care is traditionally performed in secondary care. Primary care is often involved in cancer management and could therefore play a more prominent role.

Purpose

To assess outcomes of cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies on cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care were included. A narrative synthesis was used for three distinctive outcomes: (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) costs.

Results

Sixteen studies were included: 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to heterogeneity. Most studies reported on solid tumors, like breast (N = 7) and colorectal cancers (N = 3). Clinical outcomes were reported by 10 studies, patient-reported by 11, and costs by 4. No important differences were found on clinical and patient-reported outcomes when comparing primary- with secondary-based care. Some differences were seen relating to the content and quality of survivorship care, such as guideline adherence and follow-up tests, but there was no favorite strategy. Survivorship care in primary care was associated with lower societal costs.

Conclusions

Overall, cancer survivorship care in primary care had similar effects on clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with secondary care, while resulting in lower costs.

Implications for cancer survivors

Survivorship care in primary care seems feasible. However, since the design and outcomes of studies differed, conclusive evidence for the equivalence of survivorship care in primary care is still lacking. Ongoing studies will help provide better insights.