The primary care provider (PCP)-cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis

Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP).

OBJECTIVE(S)

To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France.

RESULTS

Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient.

CONCLUSION

In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

"Being ill was the easy part": exploring cancer survivors' reactions to perceived challenges in engaging with primary healthcare

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors experience barriers to primary healthcare (PHC) services. The aim was to explore reactions to and opinions about perceived challenges associated with PHC access and quality among cancer survivors in Sweden, including how they have acted to adapt to challenges.

METHODS

Five semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with cancer survivors (n = 20) from Skåne, Sweden, diagnosed with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer or malignant melanoma. Focus groups were mixed in regard to diagnosis. Data were analysed using a descriptive template analysis approach.

RESULTS

In light of perceived challenges associated with access to adequate PHC, participants experienced that they had been forced to work hard to achieve functioning PHC contacts. The demands for self-sufficiency were associated with negative feelings such as loneliness and worry. Participants believed that cancer survivors who lack the ability to express themselves, or sufficient drive, risk missing out on necessary care due to the necessity of being an active patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight negative patient experiences. They have implications for the organization of care for cancer survivors as they indicate a need for more efficient post-treatment coordination between cancer specialist care and PHC providers, as well as increased support for patients leaving primary cancer treatment.

[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.

Providing Survivorship Care for a Young Adult With a History of Blood Cancer

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with a history of cancer are at an increased risk for late effects from their cancer treatment and have higher rates of long-term morbidity and mortality compared to their age-matched peers. As a result, this vulnerable population needs attentive follow-up care, end-organ surveillance, and secondary cancer screening; however, a history of cancer can often become buried on a problem list or not addressed at all. This case report illustrates an AYA survivor of classic Hodgkin lymphoma who relocates to a new city and establishes care with a new primary care provider (PCP). The PCP's awareness of a prior cancer diagnosis and the previous treatment regimen is a critical component in providing comprehensive care. In this case, the PCP's first step is to reach out and collaborate with oncology providers to gather an accurate treatment summary and then consult evidence-based guidelines to develop a plan of care. Based on the patient's previous treatment with chemotherapy adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, the PCP orders recommended testing, reviews results, and provides subsequent counseling on health promotion and psychosocial wellness. This case illustrates strategies healthcare providers can use to provide coordinated, evidence-based care for AYA cancer survivors.

Clinician-to-clinician connectedness and access to gastric cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

For patients with gastric cancer, the pathway from primary care (PC) clinician to gastroenterologist to cancer specialist (medical oncologist or surgeons) is referral dependent. The impact of clinician connectedness on disparities in quality gastric cancer care, such as at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-CC), remains underexplored. This study evaluated how clinician connectedness influences access to gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

METHODS

Maryland's All-Payer Claims Database was used to evaluate 667 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Two separate referral linkages, defined as ≥9 shared patients, were examined: (1) PC clinicians to gastroenterologists at NCI-CC and (2) gastroenterologists to cancer specialists at NCI-CC. Multiple logistic regression models determined associations between referral linkages and odds of undergoing gastrectomy at NCI-CC.

RESULTS

Only 15% of gastrectomies were performed at NCI-CC. Patients of gastroenterologists with referral links to cancer specialists at NCI-CC were more likely to be <65 years, male, White, and privately insured. Every additional referral link between PC clinician and gastroenterologist at NCI-CC and between gastroenterologist and cancer specialist at NCI-CC increased the odds of gastrectomy at NCI-CC by 71% and 26%, respectively. Black patients had half the odds as White patients in receiving gastrectomy at NCI-CC; however, adjusting for covariates including clinician-to-clinician connectedness attenuated this observation.

CONCLUSION

Patients of clinicians with low connectedness and Black patients are less likely to receive gastrectomy at NCI-CC. Enhancing clinician connectedness is necessary to address disparities in cancer care. These results are relevant to policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates striving for health equity.

Managing medications for patients with cancer and chronic conditions: It's time for collaboration between primary care and oncology pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To provide a rationale for a collaborative care model involving oncology and primary care pharmacists to improve the coordination of care of medications for cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions.

DATA SOURCES

A review of selected literature and the authors' own research was used. Studies illustrating the gaps in care for medications and pharmacists' roles in oncology and primary care settings from PubMed were reviewed.

DATA SUMMARY

There has been a substantial increase in the development and utilization of oral anticancer agents (OAAs). Although OAAs offer convenience and flexibility, they also introduce challenges related to medication adherence, monitoring, and managing side effects. Up to 17.5% of patients experience moderate to severe symptoms from OAAs and about 30% report less than excellent medication adherence. Further, studies showed that 30% to 53% of adult cancer patients have at least one chronic condition that complicates their treatment plan due to the need for medications, increasing the risk of drug interactions, side effects, and non-adherence. The Primary Care Oncology Model (PCOM) incorporates both primary care and oncology pharmacists with comprehensive medication review and patient-reported outcome measure, respectively, to enhance medication appropriateness and effectiveness, and improve overall patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Implementing PCOM may improve the medication management of patients taking OAAs for active cancer treatment and chronic medications for their multiple chronic conditions. This collaborative approach can transform patient care by leveraging the expertise of both primary care and oncology pharmacists.

Onco-Primary Care of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Primary clinicians foster long-term relationships with patients and play key roles in the treatment journey for patients with cancer. Primary clinicians are important members of the multidisciplinary team, and are central in coordinating and providing supportive care. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments and metastatic disease requires an awareness of their long-term survival benefits and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Primary clinicians collaborate with the oncology care team to increase irAE awareness and identify institutional and individualized approaches to manage irAEs. IrAEs can develop at any time and present with a spectrum of symptoms, making them difficult to differentiate from other conditions. IrAE management relies on early recognition, close monitoring, and intervention with corticosteroids and/or dose interruption. Delayed irAEs underscore the importance of continued clinical vigilance following treatment, as primary clinicians are patients' most enduring point of contact. Primary clinicians have a critical role in supporting the care of patients with cancer and ensuring appropriate irAE recognition, monitoring, and intervention. Long-term continuity of care is critical for the immuno-oncology patient journey.

Identifying the drivers of overall rating of cancer care: Insights from the second wave of the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences study

BACKGROUND

Patient experience surveys gather information on various aspects of care via numerous survey items. Identifying the most critical areas of patient experience to prioritize for quality care improvement can be challenging. The objective of this study was to determine which care experience items are the drivers influencing patients' overall rating of cancer care.

METHODS

Data from 2750 adult patients with cancer from the second wave of the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences study were analyzed. This cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight Swiss hospitals from September 2021 to February 2022. Stepwise logistic regression examined the relationship between overall care rating and 29 patient experience items covering different patient-centered care dimensions while adjusting for sociodemographic and health variables.

RESULTS

Overall, patients rated their cancer care experience at 8.9 out of 10. Stepwise regression identified seven drivers contributing to overall care rating. The strongest drivers were "professionals worked well together" (odds ratio [OR], 4.81) and "tests were not repeated" (OR, 2.09) from the coordination and integration dimension, "offered support for symptoms during treatment" (OR, 2.11) from the physical comfort dimension, followed by "hospital staff ensured available home support" (OR, 1.99), "offered to see health professional for concerns" (OR, 1.91), "treatment options were explained" (OR, 1.75), and "involved in treatment decisions as desired" (OR, 1.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated the care experiences of patients with cancer with a comprehensive tool that identified seven key factors independently associated with overall care rating. By concentrating on these areas, hospitals can not only improve the patient care experience but also efficiently allocate resources to quality improvement initiatives.

Professionals' Perceptions of the Colorectal Cancer Pathway: Results of a Co-Constructed Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research on the perceptions of healthcare professionals involved in cancer care about their respective roles in the patient care pathway is limited. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to document these perceptions.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team that included patient researchers constructed a semi-structured interview guide on the perceptions of the colorectal cancer care pathway by professionals. Interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from two French hospitals that manage patients with colorectal cancer. Then, the interviews were fully transcribed and analysed by the whole multidisciplinary team.

RESULTS

Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed (six nurses, four physicians, one psychologist, one social worker and one secretary). They described the colorectal care pathway using a great lexical diversity and listed a significant number of professionals as taking part in this pathway. Among the people mentioned were healthcare professionals working inside and outside the hospital, family members and non-conventional medicine practitioners. However, they did not spontaneously mention the patient. Their views on the role of the referring physician, the general practitioner and the patient were further explored. The interviews highlighted the coordination difficulties among the various professionals, particularly between general practitioners and hospital teams. These data provided interesting elements for developing a tool to help coordination among professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study, with its participatory design, brings interesting elements of reflection on the care pathway for patients with colorectal cancer. It will continue through the creation of a larger participatory project.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient partners were included in all steps of this study. This transdisciplinary project was coordinated by a group composed of three patient partners, two healthcare professionals and two humanities and social sciences researchers. Their knowledge of the patient's perspective on the care pathway enriched discussions from the study design to results analysis.

Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time.

METHODS

Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty.

RESULTS

Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP.

CONCLUSIONS

PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Adopting a systems-thinking approach to optimise dietary and exercise referral practices for cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Service referrals are required for cancer survivors to access specialist dietary and exercise support. Many system-level factors influence referral practices within the healthcare system. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify system-level factors and their interconnectedness, as well as strategies for optimising dietary and exercise referral practices in Australia.

METHODS

A full-day workshop involving national multidisciplinary key stakeholders explored system-level factors impacting dietary and exercise referral practices. Facilitated group discussions using the nominal group technique identified barriers and facilitators to referral practices based on the six World Health Organisation (WHO) building blocks. The systems-thinking approach generated six cognitive maps, each representing a building block. A causal loop diagram was developed to visualise factors that influence referral practices. Additionally, each group identified their top five strategies by leveraging facilitators and addressing barriers relevant to their WHO building block.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven stakeholders participated in the workshop, including consumers (n = 2), cancer specialists (n = 4), nursing (n = 6) and allied health professionals (n = 10), and researchers, representatives of peak bodies, not-for-profit organisations, and government agencies (n = 5). Common system-level factors impacting on referral practices included funding, accessibility, knowledge and education, workforce capacity, and infrastructure. Fifteen system-level strategies were identified to improve referral practices.

CONCLUSION

This study identified system-level factors and strategies that can be applied to policy planning and practice in Australia.

Exploring the impact of primary care utilization and health information exchange upon treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of glioblastoma patients

PURPOSE

There is limited literature describing care coordination for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). We aimed to investigate the impact of primary care and electronic health information exchange (HIE) between neurosurgeons, oncologists, and primary care providers (PCP) on GBM treatment patterns, postoperative outcomes, and survival.

METHODS

We identified adult GBM patients undergoing primary resection at our institution (2007-2020). HIE was defined as shared electronic medical information between PCPs, oncologists, and neurosurgeons. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the effect of PCPs and HIE upon initiation and completion of adjuvant therapy. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Among 374 patients (mean age ± SD: 57.7 ± 13.5, 39.0% female), 81.0% had a PCP and 62.4% had electronic HIE. In multivariate analyses, having a PCP was associated with initiation (OR: 7.9, P < 0.001) and completion (OR: 4.4, P < 0.001) of 6 weeks of concomitant chemoradiation, as well as initiation (OR: 4.0, P < 0.001) and completion (OR: 3.0, P = 0.007) of 6 cycles of maintenance temozolomide thereafter. Having a PCP (median OS [95%CI]: 14.6[13.1-16.1] vs. 10.8[8.2-13.3] months, P = 0.005) and HIE (15.40[12.82-17.98] vs. 13.80[12.51-15.09] months, P = 0.029) were associated with improved OS relative to counterparts in Kaplan-Meier analysis and in multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7, [95% CI] 0.5-1.0, P = 0.048). In multivariate analyses, chemoradiation (HR = 0.34, [95% CI] 0.2-0.7, P = 0.002) and maintenance temozolomide (HR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8, P = 0.002) were associated with improved OS relative to counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Effective care coordination between neurosurgeons, oncologists, and PCPs may offer a modifiable avenue to improve GBM outcomes.

Patient care in complex Sociotechnological ecosystems and learning health systems

The learning health system (LHS) model was proposed to provide real-time, bi-directional flow of learning using data captured in health information technology systems to deliver rapid learning in healthcare delivery. As highlighted by the landmark National Academy of Medicine report "Crossing the Quality Chasm," the U.S. healthcare delivery industry represents complex adaptive systems, and there is an urgent need to develop innovative methods to identify efficient team structures by harnessing real-world care delivery data found in the electronic health record (EHR). We offer a discussion surrounding the complexities of team communication and how solutions may be guided by theories such as the Multiteam System (MTS) framework and the Multitheoretical Multilevel Framework of Communication Networks. To advance healthcare delivery science and promote LHSs, our team has been building a new line of research using EHR data to study MTS in the complex real world of cancer care delivery. We are developing new network metrics to study MTSs and will be analyzing the impact of EHR communication network structures on patient outcomes. As this research leads to patient care delivery interventions/tools, healthcare leaders and healthcare professionals can effectively use health IT data to implement the most evidence-based collaboration approaches in order to achieve the optimal LHS and patient outcomes.

Developmental surveillance and screening practices in a pediatric oncology clinic: Initial progress of a quality improvement study

BACKGROUND

Pediatric cancer patients' oncology teams regularly take on a primary care role, but due to the urgent nature of cancer treatment, developmental screenings may be deprioritized. This leaves patients at risk of developmental diagnoses and referrals being delayed.

AIMS

Clarify the current developmental surveillance and screening practices of one pediatric oncology team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Researchers reviewed charts for patients (n = 66) seen at a pediatric oncology clinic in a suburban academic medical center to determine engagement in developmental screening (including functioning around related areas such as speech, neurocognition, etc.) and referrals for care in these areas.

RESULTS

Developmental histories were collected from all patients through admission history and physical examination (H&P), but there was no routinized follow-up. Physicians did not conduct regular developmental screening per American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for any patients but identified n = 3 patients with needs while the psychology team routinely surveilled all patients seen during this time (n = 41) and identified n = 18 patients as having delays.

DISCUSSION

Physicians did not routinely screen for development needs beyond H&P and were inconsistent in developmental follow-up/referrals. Integrated psychologists were key in generating referrals for developmental-based care. However, many oncology patients were not seen by psychologists quickly or at all, creating a significant gap in care during a crucial developmental period.

CONCLUSION

The case is made for further routinization of ongoing developmental screening in pediatric oncology care.

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

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.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group.

RESULTS

Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

BACKGROUND

Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration.

RESULTS

The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration.

DISCUSSION

Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

"Care needs to be integrated" Patient and provider perspectives on a cancer shared-care model

PURPOSE

Current early-stage breast and gynecological cancer care models often begin with a referral from a primary care provider (PCP) or gynecologist (OB/Gyn) and end with a patient being transitioned back to the referring provider at the completion of treatment. There is frequently little communication between oncologists and the referring provider during treatment, and this pattern continues after the patient completes their treatment.

METHODS

We convened a diverse Patient Advisory Board (PAB) to identify areas where breast or gynecological cancer patients felt they could benefit from additional support during and after their cancer care. PAB members attended five Zoom meetings and completed four online surveys. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care or OB/Gyn physicians to collect information on current practices.

RESULTS

Patients identified multiple areas in which they needed additional support from their PCP. Providers also identified topics on which they could use additional training. However, there was little overlap between patient and provider priority topics. Both patients and providers agreed that there was inadequate communication between the cancer center and PCPs before, during, and after cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A shared-care model that emphasizes communication between primary care providers, the oncology care team, and patients is urgently needed. Patients indicated the need for additional support from their PCP on specific topics, and PCPs were interested in continuing their education to better serve their patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The importance of consistent communication among all parties during the entire cancer journey was emphasized as a key area for improvement.

Current status of and future perspectives on care for cancer survivors in China

Cancer is currently a major public health issue faced by countries around the world. With the progress of medical science and technology, the survival rate of cancer patients has increased significantly and the survival time has been effectively prolonged. How to provide quality and efficient care for the increasingly large group of cancer survivors with limited medical resources will be a key concern in the field of global public health in the future. Compared to developed countries, China's theoretical research and practical experience in care for cancer survivors are relatively limited and cannot meet the multi-faceted and diverse care needs of cancer patients. Based on the existing models of care worldwide, the current work reviews care for cancer survivors in China, it proposes considerations and suggestions for the creation of models of cancer care with Chinese characteristics in terms of optimizing top-level system design, enhancing institutional mechanisms, accelerating human resource development, and enhancing self-management and social support for patients.

Mitigating long-term and delayed adverse events associated with cancer treatment: implications for survivorship

Despite the importance of chemotherapy-associated adverse events in oncology practice and the broad range of interventions available to mitigate them, limited systematic efforts have been made to identify, critically appraise and summarize the totality of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. Herein, we review the most common long-term (continued beyond treatment) and late or delayed (following treatment) adverse events associated with chemotherapy and other anticancer treatments that pose major threats in terms of survival, quality of life and continuation of optimal therapy. These adverse effects often emerge during and continue beyond the course of therapy or arise among survivors in the months and years following treatment. For each of these adverse effects, we discuss and critically evaluate their underlying biological mechanisms, the most commonly used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for their appropriate management. Furthermore, we discuss risk factors and validated risk-assessment tools for identifying patients most likely to be harmed by chemotherapy and potentially benefit from effective interventions. Finally, we highlight promising emerging supportive-care opportunities for the ever-increasing number of cancer survivors at continuing risk of adverse treatment effects.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT).

METHODS

In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables.

RESULTS

A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider.

CONCLUSION

Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Primary care family physicians' experiences with clinical integration in qualitative and mixed reviews: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Clinical (service) integration in primary care settings describes how comprehensive care is coordinated by family physicians (FPs) over time across healthcare contexts to meet patient care needs. To improve care integration and healthcare service planning, a systematic approach to understanding its numerous influencing factors is paramount. The objective of this study is to generate a comprehensive map of FP-perceived factors influencing clinical integration across diseases and patient demographics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We developed the protocol with the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review methodology framework. An information specialist built search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases using keywords and MeSH terms iteratively collected from a multidisciplinary team. Two reviewers will work independently throughout the study process, from article selection to data analysis. The identified records will be screened by title and abstract and reviewed in the full text against the criteria: FP in primary care (population), clinical integration (concept) and qualitative and mixed reviews published in 2011-2021 (context). We will first describe the characteristics of the review studies. Then, we will extract qualitative, FP-perceived factors and group them by content similarities, such as patient factors. Lastly, we will describe the types of extracted factors using a custom framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review. The identified factors will help generate an item bank for a survey that will be developed in the Phase II study to ascertain high-impact factors for intervention(s), as well as evidence gaps to guide future research. We will share the study findings with various knowledge users to promote awareness of clinical integration issues through multiple channels: publications and conferences for researchers and care providers, an executive summary for clinical leaders and policy-makers, and social media for the public.

Care coordination across healthcare systems: development of a research agenda, implications for practice, and recommendations for policy based on a modified Delphi panel

OBJECTIVE

For large, integrated healthcare delivery systems, coordinating patient care across delivery systems with providers external to the system presents challenges. We explored the domains and requirements for care coordination by professionals across healthcare systems and developed an agenda for research, practice and policy.

DESIGN

The modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys.

SETTING

The work addresses care coordination across healthcare systems. We introduced common care scenarios and differentiated recommendations for a large (main) healthcare organisation and external healthcare professionals that contribute additional care.

PARTICIPANTS

The panel composition included health service providers, decision makers, patients and care community, and researchers. Discussions were informed by a rapid review of tested approaches to fostering collaboration, facilitating care coordination and improving communication across healthcare systems.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy.

RESULTS

For research recommendations, we found consensus for developing measures of shared care, exploring healthcare professionals' needs in different care scenarios and evaluating patient experiences. Agreed practice recommendations included educating external professionals about issues specific to the patients in the main healthcare system, educating professionals within the main healthcare system about the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties, and helping patients better understand the pros and cons of within-system and out-of-system care. Policy recommendations included supporting time for professionals with high overlap in patients to engage regularly and sustaining support for care coordination for high-need patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

Assessment and management of nausea and vomiting in cancer survivors

ABSTRACT

Nausea and vomiting may occur in cancer survivors during or independent of treatment. A complete assessment is necessary to determine the etiology and to plan specific and successful interventions. NPs have a key role in managing cancer survivors' symptoms and determining the best supportive care.

Advancing Patient-Centered Cancer Survivorship Care: Evaluation of a Dissemination Project

Care coordination among primary care providers and oncologists continues to be a challenge in cancer survivorship care. The Advancing Patient-Centered Cancer Survivorship Care Toolkit ("Toolkit") was developed to provide a "workshop in a box" for comprehensive cancer control (CCC) stakeholders to advance patient-centered cancer survivorship care in their region. The Toolkit was disseminated through an e-learning module, established webpages, an online forum, and social media. Toolkit dissemination was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. For effectiveness, e-learning module and workshop participants were surveyed to assess changes in confidence in learning objectives. The Toolkit Web page received over 10,000 impressions. E-learning module participants (n = 212) reported statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) between the pre- (M = 3.42, SD = 0.85) and post-test (M = 4.18, SD = 0.60) mean scores on self-confidence to describe patient-reported priorities for cancer survivorship care. Among virtual workshop trainees (n = 121), 28 participants completed paired pre- and post-workshop surveys. Among those with matched responses, there were statistically significant improvements from pre- to post-workshop self-reported knowledge on what patients want in cancer survivorship care (M = 2.5, SD = 1.0, vs. M = 3.3, SD = 1.0; p = 0.001); confidence in describing critical components of patient-centered cancer survivorship care (M = 3.1, SD = 1.2, vs. M = 4.2, SD = 0.5; p < 0.001); and confidence in describing patient priorities for cancer survivorship care (M = 3.0, SD = 1.1, vs. M = 4.1, SD = 0.6; p < 0.001). Provision of technical assistance resources in a variety of formats can successfully build capacity of healthcare providers and comprehensive cancer coalition stakeholders to feel more prepared to deliver patient-centered, coordinated cancer survivorship care.

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Cancer Care Continuum Research and Educational Innovation: Are Academic Internists Keeping up with Population Trends?

Academic internists play a unique role in conducting innovative research, developing educational curricula, and influencing policy. As the population of patients living with and beyond cancer is expected to reach 22 million by 2030, it is essential for academic internists to lead innovative research in clinical care and medical education across the cancer care continuum. We characterized cancer-related topics presented at the 2015-2019 annual meetings of the Society of General Internal Medicine, a national organization of over 3,000 academic general internists. We analyzed all scientific (n = 3,437), Innovation in Medical Education (n = 756), and Innovation in Clinical Practice (n = 664) abstracts for content across the cancer continuum: prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and palliative/end-of-life care (P/EOL). Of 3,437 scientific abstracts, 304 (8.8%) related to cancer. Prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and P/EOL were addressed in 52 (17.1%), 145 (47.7%), 18 (5.9%), 57 (18.8%), 12 (4.0%), and 29 (9.5%) of scientific abstracts, respectively. Some addressed multiple phases, and 6 were classified as "other." Breast (mean = 18.2, SD = 4.66), colorectal (mean = 12.8, SD = 3.11), and lung (mean = 8.2, SD = 2.29) cancers were most presented in scientific abstracts per year. Five (0.66%) of the 756 Innovation in Medical Education abstracts and 41 (6.2%) of the 665 Innovation in Clinical Practice abstracts addressed cancer. Similarly, they primarily focused on screening and prevention. To lead innovation in clinical care, education, and policy across the cancer continuum and prepare the future workforce, academic internists should expand their focus to later phases, particularly survivorship and P/EOL.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care.

METHODS

In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization.

RESULTS

The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Concordance between General Practitioners and Radiation Oncologists for Cancer Follow-Up Care

(1) Background: Patients treated with radiotherapy require follow-up care to detect and treat acute and late side effects, and to monitor for recurrence. The increasing demand for follow-up care poses a challenge for specialists and general practitioners. There is a perception that general practitioners do not have the specialised knowledge of treatment side effects and how to manage these. Knowing the concordance between general practitioner and oncologist clinical assessments can improve confidence in healthcare professionals. This study aimed to measure the level of agreement between general practitioners and radiation oncologists using a standardised clinical assessment; (2) Methods: a cross-sectional clinical practice study; sample aim of 20 breast, prostate or colorectal patients, three years post-radiotherapy treatment; their general practitioner and radiation oncologist; (3) Results: There was acceptable percent agreement (>75%) and a moderate to almost perfect agreement (Fleiss kappa) for all variables between the 15 general practitioner-radiation oncologist dyads; (4) Conclusions: The general practitioner and radiation oncologist concordance of a clinical follow-up assessment for radiation oncology patients is an important finding. These results can reassure both general practitioners and oncologists that general practitioners can provide cancer follow-up care. However, further studies are warranted to confirm the findings and improve reassurance for health professionals.

Experimental system of care coordination for the home return of patients with metastatic cancer: a survey of general practitioners

BACKGROUND

To promote improved coordination between general practice and hospital, the French clinical trial CREDO ("Concertation de REtour à DOmicile") is testing an innovative experimental consultation for patients with metastatic cancer who are returning home. This consultation involves the patient, the patient's referring GP (GP_ref) and a GP with specific skills in oncology (GP_onc) in a specialized care center. The objective of our study is to explore the satisfaction of GPs_ref about this consultation, in the phase of interaction between GP_onc and GP_ref.

METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study explored the satisfaction of GPs_ref who had participated in this type of consultation, via a telephone survey.

RESULTS

One Hundred GPs_ref responded to the questionnaire between April and September 2019 (overall response rate: 55%). 84.5% were satisfied with the consultation, and the majority were satisfied with its methods. Half of the GPs_ref learned new information during the consultation, three-quarters noted an impact on their practice, and 94.4% thought that this type of coordination between the GP_ref and the oncology specialist could improve general practice - hospital coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

For GPs, the CREDO consultation seems to be practical and effective in improving the coordination between general medicine and hospital. GPs would benefit from such coordination for all patients with cancer, several times during follow-up and at each occurrence of a medically significant event.

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.

High Value Care in Cancer Surveillance and Screening: Evaluating an e-Curriculum for Primary Care Providers

BACKGROUND

With an expected shortage of oncologists, primary care providers (PCPs) may need to manage more cancer surveillance and screening, areas where educational resources for PCPs have been limited. The goal of this e-curriculum was for PCPs to learn surveillance and screening for several common cancers.

METHODS

The e-curriculum covered breast and colorectal cancer surveillance and lung cancer screening with (1) a pre-test assessing knowledge, attitudes, practice patterns, and confidence; (2) case vignette-based teaching; and (3) an immediate post-test (with knowledge and confidence items identical to the pre-test) providing feedback. A delayed post-test was administered several months later. The curriculum and test items were developed by content experts and evaluated in a primary care group practice.

RESULTS

Of 167 community PCPs, 152 completed the pre-test (91%), 145 completed the immediate post-test (87%), and 63 completed the delayed post-test (37%); 62 PCPs completed all three tests (37%). The median score on the pre-test was 43%, immediate post-test was 93%, and delayed post-test was 70%. For PCPs completing all three tests, the median scores were 50%, 90%, and 70%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The percentage of PCPs confident in their knowledge 4 to 6 months after module completion compared to the pre-test baseline was statistically significant for lung cancer screening but not for cancer surveillance.

CONCLUSION

This curriculum provided concise, effective education for PCPs on 3 common cancers. Limitations include content breadth and lack of data reflecting physician ordering patterns. Curricular strengths include its accessibility, immediate feedback, and effectiveness, with a significant improvement in immediate and delayed post-test knowledge. Given a lack of increased confidence to provide cancer surveillance, PCPs should rely on electronic medical record tools and other resources to guide appropriate surveillance care.

Cancer survivorship care and general practice: A qualitative study of roles of general practice team members in Australia

Primary care providers, including general practice teams (GPTs), are well positioned within the community to integrate cancer survivorship care into ongoing health management. However, roles of GPT members in delivery of cancer survivorship care have not been explored. The purpose of this study is to explore these roles from the perspectives of General Practitioners (GPs), Practice Nurses (PNs) and Practice Managers (PMs). An interpretive qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews with ten GPs, nine PNs and five PMs was conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methods. Perspectives of roles in delivery of cancer survivorship care were highly variable. Variation was evident among perceptions of needs of cancer survivors, individual team members' scopes of practice, and individual professional knowledge and skills. A lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities of GPT members was thought to contribute to a lack of consistency in survivorship care. Reducing variations in perceptions of survivorship care in the primary care setting should be a priority. Such efforts may include development of practical guidance to support GPT members to clarify scopes of practice within the team. In addition to accessible comprehensive education programs, other innovative, tailored individualised education approaches may be helpful. System-level support in clarifying and supporting the roles of the primary care team is needed to facilitate a survivorship delivery system at general practice level where those within GPT can ensure that individual patients' needs are met in a timely and effective manner.

American Cancer Society nutrition and physical activity guideline for cancer survivors

The overall 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now 68%, and there are over 16.9 million survivors in the United States. Evidence from laboratory and observational studies suggests that factors such as diet, physical activity, and obesity may affect risk for recurrence and overall survival after a cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this American Cancer Society guideline is to provide evidence-based, cancer-specific recommendations for anthropometric parameters, physical activity, diet, and alcohol intake for reducing recurrence and cancer-specific and overall mortality. The audiences for this guideline are health care providers caring for cancer survivors as well as cancer survivors and their families. The guideline is intended to serve as a resource for informing American Cancer Society programs, health policy, and the media. Sources of evidence that form the basis of this guideline are systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, pooled analyses of cohort studies, and large randomized clinical trials published since 2012. Recommendations for nutrition and physical activity during cancer treatment, informed by current practice, large cancer care organizations, and reviews of other expert bodies, are also presented. To provide additional context for the guidelines, the authors also include information on the relationship between health-related behaviors and comorbidities, long-term sequelae and patient-reported outcomes, and health disparities, with attention to enabling survivors' ability to adhere to recommendations. Approaches to meet survivors' needs are addressed as well as clinical care coordination and resources for nutrition and physical activity counseling after a cancer diagnosis.

Evaluation of an APN service in acute inpatient care of patients with a malignant brain tumor: a qualitative study in a Swiss university hospital / Evaluation eines APN-Angebots in der akut-stationären Versorgung von Patienten und Patientinnen mit malignem Hirntumor: eine qualitative Studie in einem Schweizer Universitätsspital

Background

Caring for patients with a malignant brain tumor is complex and requires a high degree of coordination. The disease reduces life expectancy and affects quality of life. Therefore, patients often depend on the support of their relatives. To achieve better care for such patients and their relatives, a Department of Neurosurgery at a Swiss university hospital introduced a Nurse Practitioner (NP) and their service in 2017. 18 months after implementation, an evaluation of this NP role was conducted. It was aimed for to explore the experience of the interprofessional health care team.

Method

A qualitative research design was used. Eight individual interviews and one focus group interview were conducted with representatives of the interprofessional health care team. Using a literature-based structured interview guide, the experience of participants was explored. Interviews were analyzed thematically.

Results

The NP and their service was appreciated. Collaboration with the medical profession and the coordination of profession-specific demands also improved. The NP as a constant person of contact had a positive effect on the continuity of care e.g., with regard to discharge management. Medical doctors and registered nurses experienced an improved patient satisfaction. Further need for improvement was identified regarding the clarification of the NP role and the interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusion

The study reports on the successful introduction of an NP and their service in oncological care; it demonstrates that the implementation of this role can also be beneficial in acute inpatient care.

A Qualitative Needs Analysis of Skin Cancer Care from the Perspectives of Patients, Physicians, and Health Insurance Representatives-A Case Study from Eastern Saxony, Germany

Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and the number of patients is steadily increasing. In skin cancer care, greater interdisciplinary cooperation is required for prevention, early detection, and new complex systemic therapies. However, the implementation of innovative medical care is a major challenge, especially for rural regions with an older than average, multimorbid population, with limited mobility, that are long distances from medical facilities. Solutions are necessary to ensure comprehensive oncological care in rural regions. The aim of this study was to identify indicators to establish a regional care network for integrated skin cancer care. To capture the perspectives of different stakeholder groups, we conducted two focus groups with twenty skin cancer patients and their relatives, a workshop with eight physicians, and three semi-structured interviews with health insurance company representatives. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following Mayring's content analysis methods. We generated ten categories based on the reported optimization potentials; five categories were assigned to all three stakeholder groups: Prevention and early diagnosis, accessibility of physicians/clinics, physicians' resources, care provider's responsibilities, and information exchange. The results indicate the need for stronger integration of care in the region. They provide the basis for regional networking as, for example, the conception of treatment pathways or telemedicine with the aim to improve a comprehensive skin cancer care. Our study should raise awareness and postulate as a demand that all patients receive guideline-based therapy, regardless of where they live.

Oncology and Primary Care Provider Views on Cancer Survivorship Care: Mind the Gap

CONTEXT

Coordination between oncology and primary care practices in cancer survivorship is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To identify cancer care coordination perceptions, knowledge, and practices in a sample of Oklahoma oncology care providers (ONCs) and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding post-treatment care of adult cancer survivors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, statewide survey by mail/web link in 2014/5.

SETTING

PCPs identified through a primary care research network, primary care organization membership lists; ONCs identified through www.Healthgrades.com.

PARTICIPANTS

Contacts who were clinically active and seeing cancer patients were eligible. The final sample size included 101 ONCs and 58 PCPs who reported actively seeing cancer patients.

MEASURES

Responses to predominately Likert scale or ranked-order questions derived from the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors.

ANALYSES

Chi square and t tests were performed to test bivariate associations between provider type and survey measures.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences (P < .05) between ONC and PCP perceptions were observed for several questions on communication between the 2 provider types, ONC perceptions of PCP ability to address survivorship care, and responsibilities for post-treatment care.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly discrepant perspectives between ONCs and PCPs regarding communications and responsibilities for survivorship care may lead to adverse health outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving care coordination for cancer survivors should define each provider group's responsibilities in survivorship care, and create structures and processes that foster clear channels of communication between ONC and PCP practices.

Physician Specialties Involved in Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Implications for Improving Health Care Disparities

CONTEXT

Little is known about provider specialties involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and management.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize providers involved in diagnosing and treating thyroid cancer.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed patients with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries (N = 2632, 63% response rate). Patients identified their primary care physicians (PCPs), who were also surveyed (N = 162, 56% response rate).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Patient-reported provider involvement (endocrinologist, surgeon, PCP) at diagnosis and treatment; (2) PCP-reported involvement (more vs less) and comfort (more vs less) with discussing diagnosis and treatment.

RESULTS

Among thyroid cancer patients, 40.6% reported being informed of their diagnosis by their surgeon, 37.9% by their endocrinologist, and 13.5% by their PCP. Patients reported discussing their treatment with their surgeon (71.7%), endocrinologist (69.6%), and PCP (33.3%). Physician specialty involvement in diagnosis and treatment varied by patient race/ethnicity and age. For example, Hispanic patients (vs non-Hispanic White) were more likely to report their PCP informed them of their diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.68; 95% CI, 1.24-2.27). Patients ≥65 years (vs <45 years) were more likely to discuss treatment with their PCP (OR: 1.59; 95% CI, 1.22-2.08). Although 74% of PCPs reported discussing their patients' diagnosis and 62% their treatment, only 66% and 48%, respectively, were comfortable doing so.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs were involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, and their involvement was greater among older patients and patients of minority race/ethnicity. This suggests an opportunity to leverage PCP involvement in thyroid cancer management to improve health and quality of care outcomes for vulnerable patients.

Informing the delivery of cancer survivorship care in rural primary care practice

Purpose

The cancer survivor population is projected to increase to 22.2 million by 2030, requiring improved collaboration between oncology and primary care practices (PCP). PCPs may feel ill-equipped to provide cancer survivorship care to patients without input from cancer specialists. Compared with nonrural cancer survivors, rural cancer survivors report experiencing worse treatment-related symptoms. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of PCP teams towards survivorship care and to develop and test an interdisciplinary training program to improve cancer survivorship care in rural practice.

Methods

This study was conducted in two phases. First, focus groups were conducted with rural PCP teams to gather information regarding beliefs, practices, and barriers related to cancer survivorship care delivery. A thematic analysis was completed using an iterative process of reviewing transcripts. Results from phase 1 were used to inform the development of a pilot intervention tested within seven rural PCPs (phase 2). Pre- and post-intervention knowledge changes were compared, and post-session interviews assessed planned or sustained practice changes.

Results

Seven PCPs participated in focus groups (phase 1). Cross-cutting themes identified included (1) organizational barriers affecting the delivery of cancer survivorship care, (2) challenges of role delineation with specialists and patients, (3) difficulty accessing survivorship care and resources, and (4) providers’ lack of knowledge of cancer survivorship care. For phase 2, seven practices participated in four case-based educational sessions. Within and between practice changes were identified.

Conclusion

This project explored cancer survivorship perspectives among PCP teams. Lack of familiarity with evidence-based guidelines and the inability to identify cancer survivors was apparent during discussions and led to the implementation of the phase 2 intervention, iSurvive. As a result, PCPs either changed or planned changes to improve the identification and evidence-based care of cancer survivors.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Address barriers to access cancer survivorship care in rural primary care practices.

Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Training on Rural Primary Care Practice Teams: a Mixed Methods Approach

With the increasing numbers of individuals surviving a diagnosis of cancer, an aging population, and more individuals experiencing multi-morbidity, primary care providers (PCPs) are seeing more patients with a history of cancer. Effective strategies are needed to adequately prepare the primary care workforce for the phase of cancer care now widely recognized as survivorship. A survivorship education program for rural primary care practices was developed using a community engagement process and delivered at the practice level by community health liaisons. A mixed method approach was used to evaluate the program impact which included a questionnaire and interviews. Descriptive analyses and generalized linear regression were used to evaluate quantitative outcomes from the questionnaires. Immersion crystallization was used to define themes from the qualitative components. Thirty-two (32) practices participated, averaging 10.3 team members/practice. The percent of correct responses to the knowledge questionnaire increased significantly, almost doubling between baseline and post-test (25% vs 46%, p < .001). Four major themes emerged from the interviews which included positive impact of the training, putting the training into practice, intention to change care delivery, contextual influences in survivorship care. Evidence from the cancer survivorship education program evaluation supports its value to key stakeholders and the potential wider dissemination of the iSurvive Program. These data also suggest the need for additional investigation into other ways beyond education that primary care practices can be supported to ensure the needs of the growing cancer survivor population in the US are met.

Provider Communication: The Key to Care Coordination Between Tribal Primary Care and Community Oncology Providers

PURPOSE

To explore tribal primary care providers' and community oncology providers' experiences of caring for individuals with cancer to inform intervention development and improve cancer care coordination in this high-need population.

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

33 tribal primary care providers and 22 nontribal, community-based oncology providers.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

A qualitative, descriptive design was used, and 55 semistructured individual interviews were completed. Data were analyzed using conventional inductive content analysis to identify major themes.

FINDINGS

Effective care coordination for individuals with cancer was characterized by timely communication. Providers in both settings identified unhindered communication between providers as a key element of care coordination. Identification of points of contact in each setting enhanced information exchange. As patient needs related to cancer care intensified, care coordination increased in complexity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Evaluating strategies to enhance communication between tribal primary care providers and community oncology providers is an important next step in enhancing the coordination of care for tribal individuals with cancer.

The dynamics of the general practitioner-nephrologist collaboration for the management of patients with chronic kidney disease before and after dialysis initiation: a mixed-methods study

Background:

Effective collaboration between general practitioners (GP) and nephrologists is crucial in CKD care. We aimed to analyse GPs’ and nephrologists’ presence and involvement in CKD care and assess how they intertwine to shape patients’ trajectories.

Methods:

We conducted a mixed-methods study that included all patients with CKD who started dialysis in France in 2015 (the REIN registry) and a sample of nephrologists and GPs. We quantified professionals’ presence through patients’ reimbursed healthcare from the French National Health Data System, 2 years before and 1 year after dialysis start. Involvement in CKD care was derived from the nephrologists’ and GPs’ interviews.

Results:

Among 8856 patients included, nephrologists’ presence progressively increased from 29% to 67% of patients with a contact during the 2 years before dialysis start. However, this was partly dependent on the GPs’ referral practices. Interviews revealed that GPs initially controlled the therapeutic strategy on their own. Although unease grew with CKD’s management complexity, reducing their involvement in favour of nephrologists, GPs’ presence remained frequent throughout the pre-dialysis period. Upon dialysis start, nephrologists’ presence and involvement became total, while GPs’ greatly decreased (48% of patients with a contact at month 12 after dialysis start). Collaboration was smooth when GPs maintained contact with patients and could contribute to their care through aspects of their specialty they valued.

Conclusions:

This mixed-methods study shows presences and forms of involvement of GPs and nephrologists in CKD care adjusting along the course of CKD and unveils the mechanisms at play in their collaboration.

Current practice patterns and gaps in guideline-concordant breast cancer survivorship care

PURPOSE

Breast cancer-specific survivorship care guidelines for the more than 3.8 million survivors in the U.S. are available, but implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. We examined current practice patterns and factors associated with guideline-concordant survivorship care among oncologists.

METHODS

A national sample of medical oncologists, recruited using two databases, participated in a survey focused on practice patterns for breast cancer survivorship care. A "survivorship care composite score" was calculated for each respondent based on provision of services recommended in the survivorship guidelines. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between physician and practice characteristics and composite scores.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 217 medical oncologists, with an overall response rate of 17.9% and eligibility rate of 56.9% for those who responded. Oncologists reported high engagement in evaluation of disease recurrence (78%). Performed less frequently were the provision of survivorship care plans (46%), assessment of psychosocial long-term and late effects (34%), and screening for subsequent cancers (34%). Lack of survivorship care training (p = 0.038) and not routinely informing patients about potential late effects (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with poorer survivorship care composite scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of disease-specific survivorship care guidelines, adherence to their recommendations in clinical practice is suboptimal. Survey results identified key gaps in survivorship care for breast cancer survivors, particularly related to subsequent primary cancers and psychosocial long-term and late effects.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Improving the delivery of comprehensive survivorship care for the growing population of breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Disease-specific clinical guidelines for cancer survivorship provide valuable recommendations, but innovative strategies are needed to integrate them into the care of long-term breast cancer survivors.

Low-touch, team-based care for co-morbidity management in cancer patients: the ONE TEAM randomized controlled trial

Background

As treatments for cancer have improved, more people are surviving cancer. However, compared to people without a history of cancer, cancer survivors are more likely to die of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increased risk for CVD-related mortality among cancer survivors is partially due to lack of medication adherence and problems that exist in care coordination between cancer specialists, primary care physicians, and cardiologists.

Methods/Design

The Onco-primary care networking to support TEAM-based care (ONE TEAM) study is an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial with clustering at the primary care clinic level. ONE TEAM compares the provision of the iGuide intervention to patients and primary care providers versus an education-only control. For phase 1, at the patient level, the intervention includes video vignettes and a live webinar; provider-level interventions include electronic health records-based communication and case-based webinars. Participants will be enrolled from across North Carolina one of their first visits with a cancer specialist (e.g., surgeon, radiation or medical oncologist). We use a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design.

Outcomes (measured at the patient level) will include Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures of management of three CVD comorbidities using laboratory testing (glycated hemoglobin [A1c], lipid profile) and blood pressure measurements; (2) medication adherence assessed pharmacy refill data using Proportion of Days Covered (PDC); and (3) patient-provider communication (Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care, PCC-Ca-36).

Primary care clinics in the intervention arm will be considered non-responders if 90% or more of their participating patients do not meet the modified HEDIS quality metrics at the 6-month measurement, assessed once the first enrollee from each practice reaches the 12-month mark. Non-responders will be re-randomized to either continue to receive the iGuide 1 intervention, or to receive the iGuide 2 intervention, which includes tailored videos for participants and specialist consults with primary care providers.

Discussion

As the population of cancer survivors grows, ONE TEAM will contribute to closing the CVD outcomes gap among cancer survivors by optimizing and integrating cancer care and primary care teams. ONE TEAM is designed so that it will be possible for others to emulate and implement at scale.

Trial registration

This study (NCT04258813) was registered in clinicaltrals.gov on February 6, 2020.

Revisiting the four core functions (4Cs) of primary care: operational definitions and complexities

BACKGROUND

The four primary care (PC) core functions (the '4Cs', ie, first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination and continuity) are essential for good quality primary healthcare and their achievement leads to lower costs, less inequality and better population health. However, their broad definitions have led to variations in their assessment, in the innovations implemented to improve these functions and ultimately in their performance.

OBJECTIVES

To update and operationalise the 4Cs' definitions by using a literature review and analysis of enhancement strategies, and to identify innovations that may lead to their enhancement.

METHODS

Narrative, descriptive analysis of the 4Cs definitions, coming from PC international reports and organisations, to identify measurable features for each of these functions. Additionally, we performed an electronic search and analysis of enhancement strategies to improve these four Cs, to explore how the 4Cs inter-relate.

RESULTS

Specific operational elements for first contact include modality of contact, and conditions for which PC should be approached; for comprehensiveness, scope of services and spectrum of population needs; for coordination, links between PC and higher levels of care and social/community-based services, and workforce managing transitions and for continuity, type, level and context of continuity. Several innovations like enrolment, digital health technologies and new or enhanced PC provider's roles, simultaneously influenced two or more of the 4Cs.

CONCLUSION

Providing clear, well-defined operational elements for these 4Cs to measure their achievement and improve the way they function, and identifying the complex network of interactions among them, should contribute to the field in a way that supports efforts at practice innovation to optimise the processes and outcomes in PC.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Service Models: To What Extent Are Consumer Perspectives Considered?

This article presents evidence found in a search of national and international literature for patient preferences concerning settings in which to receive palliative care and the appropriateness of different models of palliative care. The purpose was to inform end-of-life care policy and service development of the Western Australian Department of Health through a rapid review of the literature. It was found that consumer experience of palliative care is investigated poorly, and consumer contribution to service and policy design is limited and selective. Most patients experience a mix of settings during their illness, and evidence found by the review has more to do with qualities and values that will contribute to good end-of-life care in any location. Models of care do not make systematic use of the consumer data that are available to them, although an increasingly common theme is the need for integration of the various sources of care supporting dying people. It is equally clear that most integration models limit their attention to end-of-life care provided by health services. Transitions between settings merit further attention. We argue that models of care should take account of consumer experience not by incorporating generalised evidence but by co-creating services with local communities using a public health approach.

Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer after hospital discharge: multi-stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE

This study explored the supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer (PCa) after hospital discharge based on the perceptions of multiple stakeholders.

METHODS

Eight semi-structured focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted between September 2019 and January 2020, with 34 participants representing men with PCa, primary and secondary healthcare professionals, and cancer organizations in western Norway. Data was analysed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

Four categories emerged: 1) men with PCa have many information needs which should be optimally provided throughout the cancer care process; 2) various coordination efforts among stakeholders are needed to support men with PCa during follow-up; 3) supportive care resources supplement the healthcare services but knowledge about them is random; and 4) structured healthcare processes are needed to improve the services offered to men with PCa. Variations were described regarding priority, optimal mode and timeliness of supportive care needs, while alignment was concerned with establishing structures within and between stakeholders to improve patient care and coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite alignment among stakeholders' regarding the necessity for standardization of information and coordination practices, the mixed prioritization of supportive care needs of men with PCa indicate the need for additional individualized and adapted measures.