Australian general practitioners' preferences for managing the care of people diagnosed with cancer

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS

This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.

RESULTS

The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

Patients' acceptance of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A population-based survey using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability

INTRODUCTION

International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).

RESULTS

Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.

Outcomes of cancer survivorship education and training for primary care providers: a systematic review

Purpose

To identify published literature regarding cancer survivorship education programs for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess their outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2005 and September 2020. The Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation model were used to summarize program content and outcomes, respectively. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two authors.

Results

Twenty-one studies were included, describing self-directed online courses (n=4), presentations (n=2), workshops and training sessions (n=6), placement programs (n=3), a live webinar, a fellowship program, a referral program, a survivorship conference, a dual in-person workshop and webinar, and an in-person seminar and online webinar series. Eight studies described the use of a learner framework or theory to guide program development. All 21 programs were generally beneficial to PCP learners (e.g., increased confidence, knowledge, behavior change); however, methodological bias suggests caution in accepting claims. Three studies reported positive outcomes at the patient level (i.e., satisfaction with care) and organizational level (i.e., increased screening referrals, changes to institution practice standards).

Conclusions

A range of cancer survivorship PCP education programs exist. Evidence for clinical effectiveness was rarely reported. Future educational programs should be tailored to PCPs, utilize an evidence-based survivorship framework, and evaluate patient- and system-level outcomes.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

PCPs have an important role in addressing the diverse health care needs of cancer survivors. Improving the content, approach, and evaluation of PCP-focused cancer survivorship education programs could have a positive impact on health outcomes among cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01018-6.

Assessing suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care: a scenario-based qualitative study

Background

Shared care is the preferred model for long-term survivorship care by cancer survivors, general practitioners and specialists. However, survivorship care remains specialist-led. A risk-stratified approach has been proposed to select suitable patients for long-term shared care after survivors have completed adjuvant cancer treatment. This study aims to use patient scenarios to explore views on patient suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care across the risk spectrum from survivors, general practitioners and specialists.

Methods

Participants completed a brief questionnaire assessing demographics and clinical issues before a semi-structured in-depth interview. The interviews focused on the participant’s view on suitability for long term cancer shared care, challenges and facilitators in delivering it and resources that would be helpful. We conducted thematic analysis using an inductive approach to discover new concepts and themes.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 10 cancer survivors, 6 general practitioners and 9 cancer specialists. The main themes that emerged were patient-centredness, team resilience underlined by mutual trust and stronger system supports by way of cancer-specific training, survivorship care protocols, shared information systems, care coordination and navigational supports.

Conclusions

Decisions on the appropriateness of this model for patients need to be made collaboratively with cancer survivors, considering their trust and relationship with their general practitioners and the support they need. Further research on improving mutual trust and operationalising support systems would assist in the integration of shared survivorship care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-020-01311-w.

End-of-life care in rural and regional Australia: Patients', carers' and general practitioners' expectations of the role of general practice, and the degree to which they were met

The study objective was to explore the characteristics of rural general practice which exemplify optimal end-of-life (EOL) care from the perspective of people diagnosed with cancer, their informal carers and general practitioners (GPs); and the extent to which consumers perceived that actual EOL care addressed these characteristics. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with six people diagnosed with cancer, three informal carers and four GPs in rural and regional Australia. Using a social constructionist approach, thematic analysis was undertaken. Seven characteristics were perceived to be essential for optimal EOL care: (1) commitment and availability, (2) building of therapeutic relationships, (3) effective communication, (4) psychosocial support, (5) proficient symptom management, (6) care coordination and (7) recognition of the needs of carers. Most GPs consistently addressed these characteristics. Comprehensive EOL care that meets the needs of people dying with cancer is not beyond the resources of rural and regional GPs and communities.

Sharing Cancer Survivorship Care between Oncology and Primary Care Providers: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences

Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients’ relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.

Gaps in patient-centered follow-up cancer care: a cross sectional study

Objective There are published guidelines on the care that should be provided to cancer patients upon finishing treatment (i.e. follow-up care). Gaps in care may arise where patients' reported experiences of care do not align with guideline recommendations. The aim of this study was to explore whether oncology patients report gaps in patient-centered follow-up care. Methods This study was a cross-sectional survey of adult cancer patients receiving follow-up care within four outpatient oncology clinics. Patients were approached in clinic waiting rooms and asked to complete an electronic survey. The survey examined patients' self-report of receiving six aspects of follow-up care. Results A total of 239 participants completed the survey (study consent rate = 83%). Only 49% of participants received all six items of care. Patients reported high rates of being told who to contact if they have any questions or concerns (95%); who to contact if signs or symptoms occur (91%); and what to expect in their follow-up care (90%). A lower proportion of patients indicated they were informed about the role of their GP after treatment has finished (79%); what symptoms or signs might suggest the cancer had returned (74%); or were given a written care plan (71%). Conclusions: The study highlights that there is a gap between some aspects of optimal patient-centered care, and the actual care received by patients. Health care providers and researchers should consider how to improve follow-up care experiences to ensure best practice cancer care delivery during this important stage in cancer survivorship.

Breaking the general practice-hospital divide: Engaging primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care

AIMS

To integrate primary care into multidisciplinary cancer meetings and improve communication between hospital- and community-based care providers.

METHODS

A 12-week pilot study was conducted at Western Health, implementing a model of care, where two general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from the local community to attend weekly breast and lung multidisciplinary meetings in a liaison role as a primary care representative (PCR). Community GPs and hospital specialists were surveyed at the end of the study to assess the impact of this model of care.

RESULTS

All stakeholders agreed that two-way communication between hospital- and community-based care was improved. The role of the PCR enabled better engagement of GPs in cancer care, allowing them to manage their patients with more confidence. Patient information contributed by GPs provided a wider context for hospital specialist treatment planning and decision making.

CONCLUSION

This project has demonstrated an effective model to integrate primary care practitioners in multidisciplinary cancer care, as it enables timely and relevant two-way communication between the community and hospital care.

Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

GPs' involvement in diagnosing, treating, and referring patients with suspected or confirmed primary cutaneous melanoma: a qualitative study

Background

In Australia, melanoma is managed in primary and secondary care settings. An individual concerned about a suspicious lesion typically presents first to their GP.

Aim

To identify factors influencing GPs’ decisions to diagnose, treat, or refer patients with suspected melanoma.

Design & setting

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 GPs working in general practice or skin cancer clinics in Australia.

Method

The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, de-identified, and professionally transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

Considerable variation existed in GPs’ self-reported confidence and involvement in melanoma management. Multiple factors were identified as influencing GPs’ decisions to diagnose, treat, or refer patients with suspected or confirmed melanoma. Health system level factors included the overlapping roles of GPs and specialists, and access to and/or availability of specialists. Practice level factors included opportunities for formal and informal training, and having a GP with a special interest in skin cancer within their practice. GP and patient level factors included the GP’s clinical interests, the clinical features (for example, site and size) and histopathology of the suspected melanoma, eligibility for possible sentinel lymph node biopsy, and patient preferences. For some GPs, concerns over misdiagnosis and the option of referring patients at any stage in the melanoma management continuum appeared to affect their interest and confidence in melanoma management.

Conclusion

GP involvement in melanoma patient care can extend well beyond cancer screening, prevention and supportive care roles to include provision of definitive melanoma patient management. GPs with an interest in being involved in melanoma management should be encouraged and supported to develop the skills needed to manage these patients, and to refer when appropriate.

Forging a New Frontier: Providing Palliative Care to People With Cancer in Rural and Remote Areas

Mounting evidence supports oncology organizations' recommendations of early palliative care as a cancer care best practice for patients with advanced cancer and/or high symptom burden. However, few trials on which these best practices are based have included rural and remote community-based oncology care. Therefore, little is known about whether early palliative care models are applicable in these low-resource areas. This literature synthesis identifies some of the challenges of integrating palliative care in rural and remote cancer care. Prominent themes include being mindful of rural culture; adapting traditional geographically based specialty care delivery models to under-resourced rural practices; and using novel palliative care education delivery methods to increase community-based health professional, layperson, and family palliative expertise to account for limited local specialty palliative care resources. Although there are many limitations, many rural and remote communities also have strengths in their capacity to provide high-quality care by capitalizing on close-knit, committed community practitioners, especially if there are receptive local palliative and hospice care champions. Hence, adapting palliative care models, using culturally appropriate novel delivery methods, and providing remote education and support to existing community providers are promising advances to aid rural people to manage serious illness and to die in place. Reformulating health policy and nurturing academic-community partnerships that support best practices are critical components of providing early palliative care for everyone everywhere.

Clinical placement program in cancer survivorship for primary care providers 2017-2019

PURPOSE

The growing population of cancer survivors indicates an increasing role for primary care practitioners (PCPs). Building on two pilot initiatives, we sought to demonstrate feasibility of a state-wide program of short observational placements for PCPs and identify changes in knowledge and confidence to deliver survivorship care.

METHODS

Placements were offered at hospitals with oncology departments across Victoria, Australia. Participants attended a multidisciplinary team meeting and a minimum of two outpatient clinics. Participation targets included at least 70 general practitioners (GPs), 15 practice nurses (PNs) and 15 allied health professionals (AHPs). Mixed methods evaluation included pre- and post-placement surveys.

RESULTS

The program was successfully delivered across eight sites; 148 PCPs enrolled, 58 PCPs withdrew and ultimately 90 PCPs (53 GPs, 15 PNs and 22 AHPs) completed a total of 224 placements. Ninety-two percent (81/89) of participants reported increased knowledge and confidence regarding survivorship care, 87% (78/89) agreed they had opportunities to enhance clinical relationships with specialist teams and 93% (83/89) agreed the program was relevant to their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Building on previous pilots, this third iteration demonstrated the program is sustainable across multiple health services and geographical locations. PCPs reported increased knowledge and confidence regarding survivorship care and that the program provided opportunities to strengthen relationships between primary care and cancer specialists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

A placement program within tertiary cancer centres offers a feasible, transferable model to build PCP knowledge and confidence to deliver appropriate and quality survivorship care.

Building Personalized Cancer Follow-up Care Pathways in the United States: Lessons Learned From Implementation in England, Northern Ireland, and Australia

There is a global need to transform cancer follow-up care to address the needs of cancer survivors while efficiently using the health care system to limit the effects of provider shortages, gaps in provider knowledge, and already overburdened clinics; improve the mental health of clinicians; and limit costs to health care systems and patients. England, Northern Ireland, and Australia are implementing an approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways depending on the types and levels of resources needed for patients' long-term care that has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. This article discusses lessons learned from these implementation efforts, identifying the necessary components of these care models and barriers and facilitators to implementation of this care. Specifically, the United States and other countries looking to transform follow-up care should consider how to develop six key principles of this care: algorithms to triage patients to pathways; methods to assess patient issues to guide care; remote monitoring systems; methods to support patients in self-management; ways to coordinate care and information exchange between oncology, primary care, specialists, and patients; and methods to engage all stakeholders and secure their ongoing buy-in. Next steps to advance this work in the United States are discussed.

Are general practitioners getting the information they need from hospitals and specialists to provide quality cancer care for Indigenous Australians?

BACKGROUND

Cancer care involves many different healthcare providers. Delayed or inaccurate communication between specialists and general practitioners (GP) may negatively affect care.

AIM

To describe the pattern and variation of communication between primary healthcare (PHC) services and hospitals and specialists in relation to the patient's cancer care.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of clinical records of Indigenous Australians diagnosed with cancer during 2010-2016 identified through 10 PHC services in Queensland is described. Poisson regression was used to model the dichotomous outcome availability of hospital discharge summary versus not.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patient records was audited; 115 of those patients visited the PHC service for cancer-related care after cancer diagnosis; 40.0% visited the service before a discharge summary was available, and 36.5% of the patients had no discharge summary in their medical notes. While most discharge summaries noted important information about the patient's cancer, 42.4% lacked details regarding the discharge medications regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Deficits in communication and information transfer between specialists and GP may adversely affect patient care. Indigenous Australians are a relatively disadvantaged group that experience poor health outcomes and relatively poor access to care. The low proportion of discharge summaries noting discharge medication regimen is of concern among Indigenous Australians with cancer who have high comorbidity burden and low health literacy. Our findings provide an insight into some of the factors associated with quality of cancer care, and may provide guidance for focus areas for further research and improvement efforts.

Therapeutic alternatives for supporting GPs to deprescribe opioids: a cross-sectional survey

Background

GPs are central to opioid strategy in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Lack of treatment alternatives and providers are common reasons cited for not deprescribing opioids. There are limited data about availability of multidisciplinary healthcare providers (MHCPs), such as psychologists, physiotherapists, or dietitians, who can provide broader treatments.

Aim

To explore availability of MHCPs, and the association with GP opioid deprescribing and transition to therapeutic alternatives for CNCP.

Design & setting

Cross-sectional survey of all practising GPs (N = 1480) in one mixed urban and regional Australian primary health network.

Method

A self-report mailed questionnaire assessed the availability of MHCPs and management of their most recent patient on long-term opioids for CNCP.

Results

Six hundred and eighty-one (46%) valid responses were received. Most GPs (71%) had access to a pain specialist and MHCPs within 50 km. GPs' previous referral for specialist support was significantly associated with access to a greater number of MHCPs (P = 0.001). Employment of a nurse increased the rate ratio of available MHCPs by 12.5% (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.001 to 1.264). Only one-third (32%) of GPs reported willingness to deprescribe and shift to broader CNCP treatments. Availability of MHCPs was not significantly associated with deprescribing decisions.

Conclusion

Lack of geographical access to known MHCPs does not appear to be a major barrier to opioid deprescribing and shifting toward non-pharmacological treatments for CNCP. Considerable opportunity remains to encourage GPs' decision to deprescribe, with employment of a practice nurse appearing to play a role.

Perceptions of shared care among survivors of colorectal cancer from non-English-speaking and English-speaking backgrounds: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience difficulty navigating complex care pathways. Sharing care between GPs and specialist services has been proposed to improve health outcomes in cancer survivors following hospital discharge. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups are known to have poorer outcomes following cancer treatment but little is known about their perceptions of shared care following surgery for CRC. This study aimed to explore how non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients perceive care to be coordinated amongst various health practitioners.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using data from face to face semi-structured interviews and one focus group in a culturally diverse area of Sydney with non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors. Participants were recruited in community settings and were interviewed in English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by researchers fluent in those languages. Data were coded and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CRC survivors participated in the study. Participants from non-English-speaking and English-speaking groups described similar barriers to care, but non-English-speaking participants described additional communication difficulties and perceived discrimination. Non-English-speaking participants relied on family members and bilingual GPs for assistance with communication and care coordination. Factors that influenced the care pathways used by participants and how care was shared between the specialist and GP included patient and practitioner preference, accessibility, complexity of care needs, and requirements for assistance with understanding information and navigating the health system, that were particularly difficult for non-English-speaking CRC survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Both non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors described a blend of specialist-led or GP-led care depending on the complexity of care required, informational needs, and how engaged and accessible they perceived the specialist or GP to be. Findings from this study highlight the role of the bilingual GP in assisting CALD participants to understand information and to navigate their care pathways following CRC surgery.

General practice palliative care: patient and carer expectations, advance care plans and place of death-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

With an increasing ageing population in most countries, the role of general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) in providing optimal end of life (EoL) care is increasingly important.

OBJECTIVE

To explore: (1) patient and carer expectations of the role of GPs and GPNs at EoL; (2) GPs' and GPNs' contribution to advance care planning (ACP) and (3) if primary care involvement allows people to die in the place of preference.

METHOD

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Papers from 2000 to 2017 were sought from Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

From 6209 journal articles, 51 papers were relevant. Patients and carers expect their GPs to be competent in all aspects of palliative care. They valued easy access to their GP, a multidisciplinary approach to care and well-coordinated and informed care. They also wanted their care team to communicate openly, honestly and empathically, particularly as the patient deteriorated. ACP and the involvement of GPs were important factors which contributed to patients being cared for and dying in their preferred place. There was no reference to GPNs in any paper identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and carers prefer a holistic approach to care. This review shows that GPs have an important role in ACP and that their involvement facilitates dying in the place of preference. Proactive identification of people approaching EoL is likely to improve all aspects of care, including planning and communicating about EoL. More work outlining the role of GPNs in end of life care is required.

Integrated care for resected early stage lung cancer: innovations and exploring patient needs

There is no consensus as to the duration and nature of follow-up following surgical resection with curative intent of lung cancer. The integration of cancer follow-up into primary care is likely to be a key future area for quality and cost-effective cancer care. Evidence from other solid cancer types demonstrates that such follow-up has no adverse outcomes, similar health-related quality of life, high patient satisfaction rates at a lower cost to the healthcare system. Core elements for successful models of shared cancer care are required: clear roles and responsibilities, timely effective communication, guidance on follow-up protocols and common treatments and rapid routes to (re)access specialist care. There is thus a need for improved communication between hospital specialists and primary care. Unmet needs for patients with early stage lung cancer are likely to include psychological symptoms and carer stress; the importance of smoking cessation may frequently be overlooked or underappreciated in the current hospital-based follow-up system. There is therefore a need for quality randomised controlled trials of patients with resected early stage lung cancer to establish optimal protocols for primary care-based follow-up and to more adequately address patients' and carers' unmet psychosocial needs, including the crucial role of smoking cessation.

Review of guidance on recurrence risk management for general practitioners in breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma guidelines

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) will face cancer recurrences more frequently due to the rising number of cancer survivors and greater involvement of GPs in the follow-up care. Currently, GPs are uncertain about managing recurrence risks and may need more guidance.

OBJECTIVE

To explore what guidance is available for GPs on managing recurrence risks for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, and to examine whether recurrence risk management differs between these tumour types.

METHODS

Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma clinical practice guidelines were identified via searches on internet and the literature, and experts were approached to identify guidelines. Guidance on recurrence risk management that was (potentially) relevant for GPs was extracted and summarized into topics.

RESULTS

We included 24 breast cancer, 21 colorectal cancer and 15 melanoma guidelines. Identified topics on recurrence risk management were rather similar among the three tumour types. The main issue in the guidelines was recurrence detection through consecutive diagnostic testing. Guidelines agree on both routine and nonroutine tests, but, recommended frequencies for follow-up are inconsistent, except for mammography screening for breast cancer. Only six guidelines provided targeted guidance for GPs.

CONCLUSION

This inventory shows that recurrence risk management has overlapping areas between tumour types, making it more feasible for GPs to provide this care. However, few guidance on recurrence risk management is specific for GPs. Recommendations on time intervals of consecutive diagnostic tests are inconsistent, making it difficult for GPs to manage recurrence risks and illustrating the need for more guidance targeted for GPs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

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

Keeping primary care "in the loop": General practitioners want better communication with specialists and hospitals when caring for people diagnosed with cancer

AIM

To investigate general practitioners' (GP) perceptions about communication when providing cancer care.

METHODS

A self-report survey, which included an open response section, was mailed to a random sample of 1969 eligible Australian GPs. Content analysis of open response comments pertaining to communication was undertaken in order to ascertain GPs' views about communication issues in the provision of cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 648 GPs who completed the survey, 68 (10%) included open response comments about interprofessional communication. Participants who commented on communication were a median age of 50 years and worked 33 h/week; 28% were male and 59% practiced in the metropolitan area. Comments pertaining to communication were coded using five non-mutually exclusive categories: being kept in the loop; continuity of care; relationships with specialists; positive communication experiences; and strategies for improving communication.GPs repeatedly noted the importance of receiving detailed and timely communication from specialists and hospitals, particularly in relation to patients' treatment regimes and follow-up care. Several GPs remarked that they were left out of "the information loop" and that patients were "lost" or "dumped" after referral.

CONCLUSION

While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, detailed and timely communication between specialists and GPs is imperative to support shared care and ensure optimal patient outcomes. This research highlights the need for established channels of communication between specialist and primary care medicine to support greater involvement by GPs in cancer care.

General practitioners' attitudes toward follow-up after cancer treatment: A cross-sectional questionnaire study

OBJECTIVE

An increasing number of cancer patients place a significant workload on hospital outpatient clinics, and health authorities are considering alternative follow-up regimens. It has been suggested that follow-up of cancer patients could be provided by GPs. This study aimed to explore GPs' experiences with the provision of follow-up care for cancer patients, and their views on assuming greater responsibility in the future.

DESIGN

Electronic questionnaire study.

SUBJECTS

GPs in seven regions in Norway.

RESULTS

A total of 317 GPs responded. Many GPs reported experience in providing follow-up care to cancer patients, during the years following initial diagnosis primarily in collaboration with hospital specialists. More than half of the GPs were satisfied with their collaboration. Most GPs preferred to be involved at an early stage in follow-up care and, generally, GPs felt confident in their skills to provide this type of service. Fewer than 10% were willing to assume responsibility for additional cancer patients, citing potentially increased workload as the main reason.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs acknowledged the importance of providing follow-up care to cancer patients, and the majority felt confident in their own ability to provide such care. However, they were hesitant to assume greater responsibility primarily due to fears of increased workload. Key Points It has been suggested that follow-up of cancer patients can be provided by general practitioners (GPs). The viewpoints and attitudes of GPs regarding such follow-up were investigated. GPs reported broad experience in providing follow-up care to patients after active cancer treatment. GPs acknowledged the importance of follow-up care, and they felt confident in their own ability to provide such care. Fewer than 10% of GPs were willing to assume responsibility for additional cancer patients, citing potentially increased workload as the main reason.

The management of acute adverse effects of breast cancer treatment in general practice: a video-vignette study

Background

There has been a focus recently on the use of the Internet and email to deliver education interventions to general practitioners (GPs). The treatment of breast cancer may include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or hormone treatment. These treatments may have acute adverse effects. GPs need more information on the diagnosis and management of specific adverse effects encountered immediately after cancer treatment.

Objective

The goal was to evaluate an Internet-based educational program developed for GPs to advise patients with acute adverse effects following breast cancer treatment.

Methods

During phase 1, participants viewed 6 video vignettes of actor-patients reporting 1 of 6 acute symptoms following surgery and chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy treatment. GPs indicated their diagnosis and proposed management through an online survey program. They received feedback about each scenario in the form of a specialist clinic letter, as if the patient had been seen at a specialist clinic after they had attended the GP. This letter incorporated extracts from local guidelines on the management of the symptoms presented. This feedback was sent to the GPs electronically on the same survey platform. In phase 2, all GPs were invited to manage similar cases as phase 1. Their proposed management was compared to the guidelines. McNemar test was used to compare data from phases 1 and 2, and logistic regression was used to explore the GP characteristics that were associated with inappropriate case management.

Results

A total of 50 GPs participated. Participants were younger and more likely to be female than other GPs in Australia. For 5 of 6 vignettes in phase 1, management was consistent with expert opinion in the minority of cases (6%-46%). Participant demographic characteristics had a variable effect on different management decisions in phase 1. The variables modeled explained 15%-28% of the differences observed. Diagnosis and management improved significantly in phase 2, especially for diarrhea, neutropenia, and seroma sample cases. The proportion of incorrect management responses was reduced to a minimum (25.3%-49.3%) in phase 2.

Conclusions

There was evidence that providing feedback by experts on specific cases had an impact on GPs’ knowledge about how to appropriately manage acute treatment adverse effects. This educational intervention could be targeted to support the implementation of shared care during cancer treatment.

Development of evidence-based Australian medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations: a modified RAND appropriateness method

OBJECTIVE

Indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations have been adopted internationally as a measure of health system performance; however, few assess appropriate processes of care around medication use, that if followed may prevent hospitalisation. The aim of this study was to develop and validate evidence-based medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations.

SETTING

Australian primary healthcare.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists. A modified RAND appropriateness method was used for the development of medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations, which included a literature review, assessment of the strength of the supporting evidence base, an initial face and content validity by an expert panel, followed by an independent assessment of indicators by an expert clinical panel across various disciplines, using an online survey.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Analysis of ratings was performed on the four key elements of preventability; the medication-related problem must be recognisable, the adverse outcomes foreseeable and the causes and outcomes identifiable and controllable.

RESULTS

A total of 48 potential indicators across all major disease groupings were developed based on level III evidence or greater, that were independently assessed by 78 expert clinicians (22.1% response rate). The expert panel considered 29 of these (60.4%) sufficiently valid. Of these, 21 (72.4%) were based on level I evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a set of face and content validated indicators of medication-related potentially preventable hospitalisations, linking suboptimal processes of care and medication use with subsequent hospitalisation. Further analysis is required to establish operational validity in a population-based sample, using an administrative health database. Implementation of these indicators within routine monitoring of healthcare systems will highlight those conditions where hospitalisations could potentially be avoided through improved medication management.

Supporting patients treated for prostate cancer: a video vignette study with an email-based educational program in general practice

Background

Men who have been treated for prostate cancer in Australia can consult their general practitioner (GP) for advice about symptoms or side effects at any time following treatment. However, there is no evidence that such men are consistently advised by GPs and patients experience substantial unmet need for reassurance and advice.

Objective

The intent of the study was to evaluate a brief, email-based educational program for GPs to manage standardized patients presenting with symptoms or side effects months or years after prostate cancer treatment.

Methods

GPs viewed six pairs of video vignettes of actor-patients depicting men who had been treated for prostate cancer. The actor-patients presented problems that were attributable to the treatment of cancer. In Phase 1, GPs indicated their diagnosis and stated if they would prescribe, refer, or order tests based on that diagnosis. These responses were compared to the management decisions for those vignettes as recommended by a team of experts in prostate cancer. After Phase 1, all the GPs were invited to participate in an email-based education program (Spaced Education) focused on prostate cancer. Participants received feedback and could compare their progress and their performance with other participants in the study. In Phase 2, all GPs, regardless of whether they had completed the program, were invited to view another set of six video vignettes with men presenting similar problems to Phase 1. They again offered a diagnosis and stated if they would prescribe, refer, or order tests based on that diagnosis.

Results

In total, 64 general practitioners participated in the project, 57 GPs participated in Phase 1, and 45 in Phase 2. The Phase 1 education program was completed by 38 of the 57 (59%) participants. There were no significant differences in demographics between those who completed the program and those who did not. Factors determining whether management of cases was consistent with expert opinion were number of sessions worked per week (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90), site of clinical practice (remote practice, OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.01-5.03), number of patients seen per week (150 patients or more per week, OR 10.66, 95% CI 3.40-33.48), and type of case viewed. Completion of the Spaced Education did impact whether patient management was consistent with expert opinion (not completed, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.5-1.56).

Conclusions

The management of standardized patients by GPs was particularly unlikely to be consistent with expert opinion in the management of impotence and bony metastasis. There was no evidence from this standardized patient study that Spaced Education had an impact on the management of patients in this context. However, the program was not completed by all participants. Practitioners with a greater clinical load were more likely to manage cases as per expert opinion.

Barriers to advance care planning in cancer, heart failure and dementia patients: a focus group study on general practitioners' views and experiences

Background

The long-term and often lifelong relationship of general practitioners (GPs) with their patients is considered to make them the ideal initiators of advance care planning (ACP). However, in general the incidence of ACP discussions is low and ACP seems to occur more often for cancer patients than for those with dementia or heart failure.

Objective

To identify the barriers, from GPs' perspective, to initiating ACP and to gain insight into any differences in barriers between the trajectories of patients with cancer, heart failure and dementia.

Method

Five focus groups were held with GPs (n = 36) in Flanders, Belgium. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the method of constant comparative analysis.

Results

Three types of barriers were distinguished: barriers relating to the GP, to the patient and family and to the health care system. In cancer patients, a GP's lack of knowledge about treatment options and the lack of structural collaboration between the GP and specialist were expressed as barriers. Barriers that occured more often with heart failure and dementia were the lack of GP familiarity with the terminal phase, the lack of key moments to initiate ACP, the patient's lack of awareness of their diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that patients did not often initiate such discussions themselves. The future lack of decision-making capacity of dementia patients was reported by the GPs as a specific barrier for the initiation of ACP.

Conclusion

The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of the factors hindering GPs in initiating ACP. Multiple barriers need to be overcome, of which many can be addressed through the development of practical guidelines and educational interventions.