Primary care-led survivorship care for patients with colon cancer and the use of eHealth: a qualitative study on perspectives of general practitioners

Perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases on e-consultation in transmural care: a qualitative study : Is privacy really an issue?

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive cancer networks have been established to deliver high-quality care for patients with cancer. Logistic challenges are faced, when patients need to be referred for specialized treatments. Despite strengthened privacy legislations, digital platforms are increasingly used to consult specialists from dedicated liver centers or refer patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) for local treatment strategies. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients with CRLM regarding e-consultation of transmural specialists.

METHODS

A focus group study was conducted. Patients referred from regional hospitals to an academic liver center for treatment of CRLM were asked to participate. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis of data was conducted, comprising open, axial, and selective coding of the transcripts. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were used.

RESULTS

Two focus groups were held, involving 11 patients and 8 relatives. Three major themes were identified with regard to e-consultation in transmural care: 'data management', 'expertise', and 'information and coordination'. Confidence in the expertise of physicians appeared most important during the course of treatment, as patients experienced uncertainty after diagnosis of cancer. Despite the privacy risks, use of digital communication platforms to contact experts in the field were strongly endorsed to improve eligibility for potentially curative treatment. Moreover, e-consultation of specialists may reduce waiting times, due to effective coordination of care.

CONCLUSION

Initiatives to improve medical data transfer between care providers were encouraged to achieve effective coordination of oncological care. The potential hazard of privacy violation associated with digital data exchange is accepted by patients and their relatives, provided that use of digital data improves patient's own health care, research or education.

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.

eHealth Interventions for Dutch Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using the Triple Aim Lens

Background

Globally, the burden of cancer on population health is growing. Recent trends such as increasing survival rates have resulted in a need to adapt cancer care to ensure a good care experience and manageable expenditures. eHealth is a promising way to increase the quality of cancer care and support patients and survivors.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was 2-fold. First, we aimed to provide an overview of eHealth interventions and their characteristics for Dutch patients with and survivors of cancer. Second, we aimed to provide an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on population health, quality of care, and per capita costs (the Triple Aim domains).

Methods

The electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Ovid PsycINFO were searched using 3 key search themes: eHealth interventions, cancer care, and the Netherlands. The identified interventions were classified according to predetermined criteria describing the intervention characteristics (eg, type, function, and target population). Their impact was subsequently examined using the Triple Aim framework.

Results

A total of 38 interventions were identified. Most of these were web portals or web applications functioning to inform and self-manage, and target psychosocial factors or problems. Few interventions have been tailored to age, disease severity, or gender. The results of this study indicate that eHealth interventions could positively affect sleep quality, fatigue, and physical activity of patients with and survivors of cancer. Inconclusive results were found regarding daily functioning and quality of life, psychological complaints, and psychological adjustment to the disease.

Conclusions

eHealth can improve outcomes in the Triple Aim domains, particularly in the population health and quality of care domains. Cancer-related pain and common symptoms of active treatment were not targeted in the included interventions and should receive more attention. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on participation, accessibility, and costs. The latter can be examined in economic evaluations by comparing eHealth interventions with care as usual.

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners

BACKGROUND

With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

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.

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.

A nurse-led self-management support intervention for patients and informal caregivers facing incurable cancer: A feasibility study from the perspective of nurses

PURPOSE

Investigation of the feasibility of recruitment through nurses of patients with incurable cancer, and the feasibility (adoption, usage) and nurses' evaluation of a nurse-led self-management support intervention, integrated in continuity home visits and based on the 5 A's Behavior Change Model.

METHOD

Questionnaire, registrations, evaluation forms, and interviews.

RESULTS

Recruitment was complicated; many patients were ineligible for participation, nurses appeared protective of their patients (gatekeeping), and recruitment during the first continuity home visit appeared to be a barrier as a lot of other issues had to be discussed. The adoption rate was 81%, meaning that 18 out of 22 nurses recruited were willing to use the intervention. The usage rate at the nurse level was 56%, meaning that 10 nurses applied the intervention in full (having applied all five A's) in at least one patient. Nurses used the intervention in full in 21 out of the 36 patients included, implying a usage rate at the patient level of 58%. Nurses' mean general satisfaction score for the intervention was 7.57 (range 0-10). Nurse were especially positive about the 5 A's model, and considered the continuity home visits to be an appropriate setting for the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of recruitment and gatekeeping complicated recruitment of patients through nurses. Although nurses were positive about the intervention, nurses often did not fully apply the intervention. To improve its usage, it is suggested that nurses should first be trained in using the 5 A's model.

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

BACKGROUND

Primary health care use increases when cancer is diagnosed. This increase continues after cancer treatment. More generalist care is suggested to improve survivorship care. It is unknown to what extent cancer-related symptoms are currently presented in primary care in this survivorship phase.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse primary health care utilization of colon cancer patients during and after treatment with curative intent.

METHODS

In a prospective multicentre cohort study among patients with curatively treated colon cancer, we describe the primary health care utilization during the first 5 years of follow-up. Data were collected at general practitioner (GP) practices during 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 183 included participants, 153 (84%) consulted their GP resulting in 606 contacts (mean 3.3, standard deviation 3.01) with on average 0.9 contact for colon-cancer-related (CCR) problems in the 6-month study period. Median time after surgery at inclusion was 7.6 months (range 0-58). Abdominal pain and chemotherapy-related problems were the most frequently reported CCR reasons. Of the CCR contacts, 83% was managed in primary care. As time after surgery passed, the number of CCR contacts declined in patients without chemotherapy and remained constant in patients who received chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Colon cancer survivors contact their GP frequently also for reasons related to cancer. Currently, a formal role for GPs in survivorship care is lacking, but nevertheless GPs provide a substantial amount of care. Working agreements between primary and secondary care are necessary to formalize the GP's role in order to improve the quality of survivorship care.

Colorectal cancer patients' preferences for type of caregiver during survivorship care

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are currently included in a secondary care-led survivorship care programme. Efforts are underway to transfer this survivorship care to primary care, but met with some reluctance by patients and caregivers. This study assesses (1) what caregiver patients prefer to contact for symptoms during survivorship care, (2) what patient factors are associated with a preferred caregiver, and (3) whether the type of symptom is associated with a preferred caregiver.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of CRC survivors at different time points. For 14 different symptoms, patients reported if they would consult a caregiver, and who they would contact if so. Patient and disease characteristics were retrieved from hospital and general practice records.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty patients participated (response rate 54%) of whom the average age was 67, 54% were male. The median time after surgery was seven months (range 0-60 months). Patients were divided fairly evenly between tumour stages 1-3, 33% had received chemotherapy. Men, patients older than 65 years, and patients with chronic comorbid conditions preferred to consult their general practitioner (GP). Women, patients with stage 3 disease, and patients that had received chemotherapy preferred to consult their secondary care provider. For all symptoms, patients were more likely to consult their GP, except for (1) rectal blood loss, (2) weight loss, and (3) fear that cancer had recurred, in which case they would consult both their primary and secondary care providers. Patients appreciated all caregivers involved in survivorship care highly; with 8 out of 10 points.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC survivors frequently consult their GP in the current situation, and for symptoms that could alarm them to a possible recurrent disease consult both their GP and secondary care provider. Patient and tumour characteristics influence patients' preferred caregiver.