Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

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.

What is the evidence behind cancer care reviews, a primary care cancer support tool? A scoping review

PURPOSE

A "cancer care review" (CCR) is a conversation between a patient recently diagnosed with cancer and primary care practitioner soon after a diagnosis of cancer in the UK. This scoping review aimed to identify: methodology and validated outcome measures used to evaluate CCRs, the impact of CCRs on quality of life or symptoms, and the views of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals on CCRs.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed and five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched systematically from January 2000 to March 2022.

RESULTS

Of 4133 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. These included surveys, qualitative research on stakeholders' views and a small study evaluating group consultation CCRs. There were no studies on methodology to evaluate CCRs or the impact of CCRs on patient quality of life or symptoms. Some primary care professionals felt CCRs were a tick-box exercise, and that they had inadequate time to deliver care, compounded by inadequate primary-secondary care coordination and lack of expertise which was echoed by patients. Interviews with patients found few recalled CCRs and those that recalled CCRs did, did not find them particularly helpful. Partners of patients would welcome CCRs to raise personal health concerns and remain updated on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies should identify the role that stakeholders believe they should have in CCRs, improve care coordination between primary care and secondary care and how to support caregivers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of CCRs in general practice.

Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing cancer at an early stage increases the likelihood of survival, and more advanced cancers are more difficult to treat successfully. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in timely diagnosis of cancer. PCPs' knowledge of their own patient populations and health systems could help improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer recognition and referral. How PCPs act when faced with patients who may have cancer is likely to depend on how their health systems are organised, and this may be one explanation for the wide variation on cancer survival rates across Europe.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and characterise clusters of countries whose PCPs perceive the same factors as being important in improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

A cluster analysis of qualitative data from an online survey was carried out. PCPs answered an open-ended survey question on how the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Following coding and thematic analysis, we identified the number of times per country that an item in a theme was mentioned. k-means clustering identified clusters of countries whose PCPs perceived the same themes as most important. Post-hoc testing explored differences between these clusters.

SETTING

Twenty-five primary care centres in 20 European countries. Each centre was asked to recruit at least 50 participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care practitioners of each country.

RESULTS

In all, 1,351 PCPs gave free-text answers. We identified eighteen themes organising the content of the responses. Based on the frequency of the themes, k-means clustering identified three groups of countries. There were significant differences between clusters regarding the importance of: access to tests (p = 0.010); access to specialists (p = 0.014), screening (p < 0.001); and finances, quotas & limits (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified three distinct clusters of European countries within which PCPs had similar views on the factors that would improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to understand what it is about the clusters that have produced these patterns, allowing healthcare systems to share best practice and to reduce disparities.

Cancer patients' needs assessment in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), economic evaluation and normalisation process theory evaluation of the needs assessment tool cancer (CANAssess)

INTRODUCTION

Unmet needs in patients with cancer and their carers are common but poorly identified and addressed. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a structured consultation guide to identify and triage patient and carer unmet needs. The NAT-C is validated, but its effectiveness in reducing unmet patient and carer needs in primary care is unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Cluster randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of the NAT-C in primary care for people with active cancer in reducing unmet patient and carer need, compared with usual care. We will recruit 1080 patients with active cancer (and carers if relevant) from 54 general practices in England.Participating practices will be randomised 1:1 to either deliver an NAT-guided clinical consultation plus usual care or to usual care alone. Consenting participants with active cancer and their carers (if nominated) will be asked to complete study questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 3 months for all, 6 months except for those recruited outside of the last 3 months of recruitment, and attend an NAT-C appointment if allocated to an intervention practice. An internal pilot will assess: site and participant recruitment, intervention uptake and follow-up rates. The primary outcome, the proportion of patients with an unmet need on the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 at 3 months postregistration, will be analysed using a multilevel logistic regression. Mixed-methods process evaluation informed by Normalisation Process Theory will use quantitative survey and interview data from clinicians and key stakeholders in cancer care to develop an implementation strategy for nationwide rollout of the NAT-C if the intervention is cost-effective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval from London-Surrey REC (20/LO/0312). Results will be peer-reviewed, published and made available to research participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15497400.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perceptions of the cancer care left undone in primary and community services: A mixed methods evaluation

Primary and community care in the United Kingdom are under increasing workforce and time pressures. How these pressures affect the delivery of cancer care has rarely been explored. This service evaluation aimed to elucidate some of the views of the workforce in this sector of what work in cancer care is left undone, and what they would like to be able to offer more of. An exploratory sequential design was taken including a questionnaire and interviews asking primary and community care staff in London about their workload in cancer care. Surveys were analysed using descriptive statistics. The evaluation revealed a perception from primary and community care that there is work in cancer care that is currently being left undone. 64% of the workforce across all professions reported that they worked 10 or more hours of unpaid overtime per week. Respondents identified psychological care for people with cancer (PWC), and bereavement care for families and carers of PWC as the most common areas that were left undone. They would like to do more proactive work, in place of the current reactive 'fire-fighting' they are doing. For example, signposting available services to PWC and access to nutritional support. There was a desire for acknowledgement of the time and workforce pressures in primary and community care, and how these are hindering the delivery of care for PWC.

A randomized clinical trial assessing a pragmatic intervention to improve supportive care for family caregivers of patients with lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients often experience high distress. This randomized clinical trial assessed the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve FC supportive care.

METHOD

A pragmatic and minimal intervention to improve FC supportive care was developed and pretested with FCs, oncology team, and family physicians to assess its relevance and acceptability. Then, FCs of lung cancer patients were randomized to the intervention or the control group. The intervention included (1) systematic FC distress screening and problem assessment in the first months after their relative cancer diagnosis, and every 2 months after; (2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse to address FC problems, provide emotional support and skills to play their caregiving role; (3) liaison with the family physician of FCs reporting high distress (distress thermometer score ≥4/10) to involve them in the provision of supportive care. Distress, the primary outcome, was measured every 3 months, for 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, caregiving preparedness, and perceived burden. At the end of their participation, a purposive sample of FC from the experimental group was individually interviewed to assess the intervention usefulness. Content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 109 FCs participated in the trial. FC distress decreased over time, but this reduction was observed in both groups. Similar results were found for secondary outcomes. However, FCs who received the intervention felt better prepared in caregiving than controls (p = 0.05). All 10 interviewed FCs valued the intervention, even though they clearly underused it. Knowing they could contact the oncology nurse served as a security net.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Although the intervention was not found effective, some of its aspects were positively perceived by FCs. As many of them experience high distress, an improved intervention should be developed to better support them.

GP experience and understandings of providing follow-up care in prostate cancer survivors in England

Survival times for prostate cancer have increased substantially, meaning more survivors will be discharged to General Practitioners' (GP) services. The detection of recurrence and monitoring of symptoms and long-term side-effects in prostate cancer survivors requires the active involvement of GPs in their follow-up care. In order to address this, the transition and discharge from hospital to primary care must be managed effectively. The objective of this study was to examine the preparedness, concerns and experiences of GPs in relation to their role in providing follow-up care to prostate cancer survivors. Purposive sampling was used to recruit GPs with experience in providing care to prostate cancer survivors. Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs across England. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants described their current role in the follow-up pathway, a number of challenges and barriers in assuming this role, and potential ways to resolve these and improve their involvement. They expressed a range of views about their preparedness and willingness to take over follow-up care after discharge for this group of patients. GPs had reservations about workload, lack of resources, expertise and deficiencies in communication with hospitals. Findings from this study suggest that GPs will be ready to take over the follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors if better information, additional training and adequate resources are provided and communication lines with hospital specialists are clear. Understanding the issues faced by GPs and overcoming identified barriers to providing follow-up care to prostate cancer survivors will provide the insight necessary to make the process of transferring care from secondary to primary teams a more straightforward task for all stakeholders.

Management of erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment: cross-sectional surveys of the perceptions and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is known to be a common consequence of radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) but is often under-reported and undertreated. This study aimed to explore how ED in patients with PCa is managed in real-life clinical practice, from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a UK-wide cross-sectional survey of men with ED after treatment for PCa which covered assessment and discussion of erectile function, provision of supportive care and satisfaction with management. Parallel surveys of primary and secondary HCPs were also conducted.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 546 men with ED after PCa treatment, 167 primary (general practitioners and practice nurses) and 94 secondary care HCPs (urologists and urology clinical nurse specialists). Survey findings revealed inadequate management of ED in primary care, particularly underprescribing of effective management options. A fifth of men (21%) were not offered any ED management, and a similar proportion (23%) were not satisfied with the way HCPs addressed their ED concerns. There was poor communication between HCPs and men, including failure to initiate discussions about ED and/or involve partners, with 12% of men not told that ED was a risk factor of PCa treatment. These issues seemed to reflect poor access to effective ED management or services and lack of primary HCP confidence in managing ED, as well as confusion over the roles and responsibilities among both HCPs and men.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the need for better support for men from HCPs and more tailored and timely access to effective ED management after treatment for PCa. A clearly defined pathway is required for the discussion and management of ED, starting from the planning stage of PCa treatment. Improved adherence to ED management guidelines and better education and training for primary care HCPs are areas of priority.

How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

National European cancer survival rates vary widely. Prolonged diagnostic intervals are thought to be a key factor in explaining these variations. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) frequently play a crucial role during initial cancer diagnosis; their knowledge could be used to improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought the views of PCPs from across Europe on how they thought the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved.

DESIGN

In an online survey, a final open-ended question asked PCPs how they thought the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

SETTING

A primary care study, with participating centres in 20 European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1352 PCPs answered the final survey question, with a median of 48 per country.

RESULTS

The main themes identified were: patient-related factors, including health education; care provider-related factors, including continuing medical education; improving communication and interprofessional partnership, particularly between primary and secondary care; factors relating to health system organisation and policies, including improving access to healthcare; easier primary care access to diagnostic tests; and use of information technology. Re-allocation of funding to support timely diagnosis was seen as an issue affecting all of these.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, health systems need to facilitate earlier patient presentation through education and better access to care, have well-educated clinicians with good access to investigations and better information technology, and adequate primary care cancer diagnostic pathway funding.

Care coordination for complex cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net system: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews.

DISCUSSION

This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

The role of family physicians in cancer care: perspectives of primary and specialty care providers

BACKGROUND

Currently, the specific role of family physicians (fps) in the care of people with cancer is not well defined. Our goal was to explore physician perspectives and contextual factors related to the coordination of cancer care and the role of fps.

METHODS

Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we conducted telephone interviews with 58 primary and cancer specialist health care providers from across Canada.

RESULTS

The participants-21 fps, 15 surgeons, 12 medical oncologists, 6 radiation oncologists, and 4 general practitioners in oncology-were asked to describe both the role that fps currently play and the role that, in their opinion, fps should play in the future care of cancer patients across the cancer continuum. Participants identified 3 key roles: coordinating cancer care, managing comorbidities, and providing psychosocial care to patients and their families. However, fps and specialists discussed many challenges that prevent fps from fully performing those roles: ■ The fps described communication problems resulting from not being kept "in the loop" because they weren't copied on patient reports and also the lack of clearly defined roles for all the various health care providers involved in providing care to cancer patients.■ The specialists expressed concerns about a lack of patient access to fp care, leaving specialists to fill the care gaps. The fps and specialists both recommended additional training and education for fps in survivorship care, cancer screening, genetic testing, and new cancer treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Better communication, more collaboration, and further education are needed to enhance the role of fps in the care of cancer patients.

Caring for people living with, and beyond, cancer: an online survey of GPs in England

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of people are living with, and beyond, cancer. They are at risk of long-term morbidity and premature mortality due to the consequences of their disease and its treatment. Primary care can contribute to providing ongoing care.

AIM

To determine the current practice and views of GPs in England regarding cancer survivorship care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Online survey of a sample of 500 GPs, stratified by NHS region in England.

METHOD

The survey included questions adapted from prior surveys assessing physician knowledge and attitudes regarding care of patients with cancer.

RESULTS

In total, 500 GPs responded; approximately half reported often providing care to people living beyond cancer for treatment-related side effects (51%), psychological symptoms (65%), and lifestyle advice (55%). Only 29% felt very confident managing treatment-related side effects compared with 46% and 65% for psychological symptoms and lifestyle advice respectively. Half reported usually receiving cancer treatment summaries and survivorship care plans but most of the sample felt these would improve their ability to provide care (76%). Only 53% were convinced of the usefulness of cancer care reviews. Although most felt that primary and specialist care should share responsibility for managing bone (81%) and cardiovascular (77%) health consequences, fewer than half reported often taking previous history of cancer or cancer treatment into consideration when assessing bone health; only one-fifth did this in relation to cardiovascular health. Most responders were interested in receiving education to improve their knowledge and expertise.

CONCLUSION

GPs have a potentially important role to play in caring for people following cancer treatment. This study has highlighted areas where further support and education are needed to enable GPs to optimise their role in cancer survivorship care.

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

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

The Role of General Practitioners in Cancer Care: A Mixed Method Design

The aims of this study were to identify the current role of general practitioners (GP) and the unmet needs of cancer patients in primary care. First, we conducted individual interviews with 10 cancer patients. Next, we developed a questionnaire, which was distributed among cancer patients across Estonia. Altogether, 113 questionnaires were returned. We observed that while the patients were satisfied with their GP's work, they mostly preferred to discuss cancer-related problems with oncologists. The role of GPs in regard to other diseases was perceived as very important, also patients found it relevant to consult all investigations with their primary health care physician. The main problems experienced by the patients were a lack of proper accessible information about their disease and its inadequate presentation by doctors, as well as problems with coordination between primary and secondary health care providers. In conclusion, we can say that even treatment of cancer is centralised to oncology clinics, patients also contact their GPs during cancer care. Therefore, GPs should be aware of patients' general health and comorbid medical problems. Better communication between primary and secondary health care doctors as well as more integration of GPs in cancer care is needed.

What role does the general practitioner in France play among cancer patients during the initial treatment phase with intravenous chemotherapy? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

France's ethical and legal principles place general practitioners (GPs) at the forefront of cancer patient management, coordination, and follow-up. The objective of this study was to determine the actual role of GPs in the follow-up phase as well as patient perspectives on their GPs.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary group of researchers conducted this qualitative study based on in-depth interviews of 50 patients managed at two cancer centres. A content analysis method was used to analyse the study data.

RESULTS

According to the patients interviewed for this study, their GPs were relatively ineffective at managing medical problems related to cancer by comparison with their oncologists. Nonetheless, the patients had all consulted their GPs during the interval between the diagnosis and our interview. Reasons given for consulting their GPs included administrative matters, psychological support, reassurance, and advice, but also to a lesser extent, medical management.

CONCLUSION

Patients' perspectives called attention to two aspects of the role of GPs in the French healthcare system: (a) the importance of GPs within an effective system for managing cancer patients, and (b) for some patients, GPs' relative lack of medical skill compared to oncologists.

Preparing general practitioners to receive cancer patients following treatment in secondary care: a qualitative study

Background

Many patients consider the interface between secondary and primary care difficult, and in particular, the transition of care between these different parts of the healthcare system presents problems. This interface has long been recognized as a critical point for quality of care. The purpose of our study is to formulate solutions to problems identified by cancer patients and healthcare professionals during the transition from hospital back to general practice on completion of primary treatment for cancer.

Methods

A qualitative study based on focus groups at a seminar for professionals in both primary and secondary healthcare. Participants discussed solutions to problems which had previously been identified in patient interviews and in focus groups with general practitioners (GPs), hospital doctors, and nursing staff. The data were analyzed using framework analysis.

Results

Solutions, endorsed by all groups at the seminar to improve transition back to general practice after primary treatment for cancer, were: 1) To add nurses’ discharge letters addressing psychosocial matters to medical discharge letters; 2) To send medical discharge letters earlier from some hospital departments to GPs; 3) To provide plans and future affiliations for patients when they leave a department, and 4) To arrange a return visit to general practice dedicated to discussion of the patients’ cancer disease and the treatment experience.

Conclusions

The transition of care of cancer patients appears too complex to be coordinated by administrative standards alone. We recommend that healthcare professionals are more engaged and present in the coordination of care across organizational boundaries.

Health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice: a systematic review

Background

The number of cancer survivors is increasing due to improved treatments. Consequently, general practitioners will treat more and more cancer survivors in the upcoming years. Only little is known about the care needs of these survivors and guidelines to support general practitioners in their treatment of these patients are lacking. The aim of this study was to gain insight in the health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice.

Methods

A systematic review on cancer survivors’ general practice needs was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. Eligible studies could be qualitative or quantitative studies examining cancer survivors’ needs in general practice. Studies of adult survivors, with any cancer type, considered free of active disease and no longer receiving active treatment, were included. For each study a quality score was given using a form developed specifically for this study. Statements about survivors’ general practice needs were collected and corresponding themes were grouped.

Results

Fifteen studies were included, of which twelve were qualitative. Most mentioned general practice needs were psychosocial needs, mainly being support received form the GP, followed by a need for help with medical issues, and a need for information on cancer, recovery, late treatment effects and on adjusting to life after treatment.

Conclusions

Cancer survivors have different types of general practice needs that are currently not or insufficiently met. This review provides a starting point for the development of new guidelines for general practitioners to support in cancer survivorship.

The impact of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on the engagement of primary and community-based healthcare professionals in cancer care: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Primary health services are well placed to reinforce prevention, early intervention, and connected care. Despite this important role, primary care providers (PCPs) have a limited capacity to meet the varied needs of people with cancer and their carers - furthermore, the reasons for this largely remain unexplored.

SCOPE

To identify: (1) the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs held by health professionals and patients that can influence the engagement of PCPs with the early detection of cancer and follow-up care; (2) evidence that attitudes and beliefs can be modified with measureable impact on the engagement of PCPs with cancer care; and (3) potential targets for intervention. This was achieved through a review of English publications from 2000 onwards, sourced from six academic databases and complemented with a search for grey literature.

FINDINGS

A total of 4212 articles were reviewed to identify studies conducted in the UK, Canada, Holland (or The Netherlands), Australia, or New Zealand given the comparable role of PCPs. Several factors hinder PCP participation in cancer care, all of which are related to knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Patients and specialists are uncertain about the role that primary care could play and whether their primary care team has the necessary expertise. PCPs have varied opinions about the ideal content of follow-up programs. Study limitations include: the absence of well accepted definitions of key terms; the indexing systems used by databases to code publications, which may have obscured all relevant publications; the paucity of robust research; and possible researcher bias which was minimized through independent review by trained reviewers and the implementation of rigorous inter-rater reliability measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs influence PCP engagement in cancer care. It is important to develop shared understandings of these terms because the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of PCPs, specialists, patients, and their families can influence the effectiveness of treatment plans.

Proactive cancer care in primary care: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Current models of post-treatment cancer care are based on traditional practices and clinician preference rather than evidence of benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of using a structured template to provide holistic follow-up of patients in primary care from cancer diagnosis onwards.

METHODS

A two-phase mixed methods action research project. An electronic cancer ongoing review document (CORD) was first developed with patients and general practitioners, and used with patients with a new diagnosis of cancer. This was evaluated through documentary analysis of the CORDs, qualitative interviews with patients, family carers and health professionals and record reviews.

RESULTS

The records of 107 patients from 13 primary care teams were examined and 45 interviews conducted. The document was started in 54% of people with newly diagnosed cancer, and prompted clear documentation of multidimension needs and understanding. General practitioners found using the document helped to structure consultations and cover psychosocial areas, but they reported it needed to be better integrated in their medical records with computerized prompts in place. Few clinicians discussed the review openly with patients, and the template was often completed afterwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipatory cancer care from diagnosis to cure or death, 'in primary care', is feasible in the U.K. and acceptable to patients, although there are barriers. The process promoted continuity of care and holism. A reliable system for proactive cancer care in general practice supported by hospital specialists may allow more survivorship care to be delivered in primary care, as in other long-term conditions.

Patients' experience with cancer care: a qualitative study in family practice

BACKGROUND

Continuity is an important aspect of cancer care that is often a challenge owing to the movement of patients between family practice, cancer clinics, and hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the experiences of cancer patients in relation to continuity of care.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in a family practice setting. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. 10 cancer patients with a wide variation in their disease duration and experiences with medical care were interviewed. Open questions were used to encourage patients to express their personal experiences with cancer care. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed by three researchers using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Cancer patients experienced a lack of information concerning cancer and its treatment. They also perceived that the cancer treatment made them suffer. In the patients' opinion, the family doctor has a limited role in cancer care. However, the patients felt that the family doctor should be aware of their health. The patients' satisfaction with the oncologist's care was high. They considered that their role in cancer care was to mediate an exchange of information between the oncologist and the family doctor.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients experience continuity of care in several ways: continuity in cancer care should be implemented by co-ordinating activities, such as regular check-ups, a clear timeframe and provision of adequate information. In addition, communication between the primary and secondary sector could be improved.

Chronic Diseases among Older Cancer Survivors

Objective. To compare the occurrence of pre-existing and subsequent comorbidity among older cancer patients (≥60 years) with older non-cancer patients. Material and Methods. Each cancer patient (n = 3835, mean age 72) was matched with four non-cancer patients in terms of age, sex, and practice. The occurrence of chronic diseases was assessed cross-sectionally (lifetime prevalence at time of diagnosis) and longitudinally (incidence after diagnosis) for all cancer patients and for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients separately. Cancer and non-cancer patients were compared using logistic and Cox regression analysis. Results. The occurrence of the most common pre-existing and incident chronic diseases was largely similar in cancer and non-cancer patients, except for pre-existing COPD (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06–1.37) and subsequent venous thrombosis in the first two years after cancer diagnosis (HR 4.20, 95% CI 2.74–6.44), which were significantly more frequent (P < 0.01) among older cancer compared to non-cancer patients. Conclusion. The frequency of multimorbidity in older cancer patients is high. However, apart from COPD and venous thrombosis, the incidence of chronic diseases in older cancer patients is similar compared to non-cancer patients of the same age, sex, and practice.

A qualitative study exploring the experience of the partners of cancer survivors and their views on the role of primary care

PURPOSE

The partners of cancer survivors may experience distress, anxiety, fear and uncertainty whilst also caring for and supporting a partner who is ill. As they concentrate on the cancer survivor's needs, their own needs may remain unaddressed. Primary care staff may be well placed to support partners as they are generally accessible and may have a better knowledge of the patient's background and family relationships. However, their current involvement in the cancer survivor's and partner's cancer-related care is unclear. This study aimed to describe the experience of the partners of cancer survivors in dealing with cancer-related issues in the first 3 years post-diagnosis, their use of primary care services in relation to these issues and the barriers in doing so and their views on the role that primary care could potentially play in supporting them as carers during this period.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 22 partners of cancer survivors diagnosed within the last 3 years and recruited through six GP practices in the Thames Valley Region of the UK were analysed using the 'framework' approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three issues were identified as of particular concern to partners: providing practical support, providing emotional support and managing their own health and well-being. Few partners had sought or received support from primary care specifically for cancer-related issues, indicating confidentiality, lack of knowledge of family relationships and the greater need of the cancer survivor as barriers. Most partners would welcome a proactive approach from primary care and felt that this would provide an opportunity to discuss issues they were concerned about.

CONCLUSIONS

Needs and concerns of the partners of cancer survivors in caring for patients are often not addressed. There is a scope for primary care to elicit these needs and provide greater support. Changes to clinical practice in primary care could lead to greater involvement of and to better outcomes for cancer survivors and their partners. A proactive approach to patients and their partners or other close family members at the time of diagnosis through an offer of support and the inclusion in a designated review appointment at the end of initial treatment would be useful.

A qualitative study of unmet needs and interactions with primary care among cancer survivors

Introduction:

Despite increasing numbers, there is little research investigating the long-term needs of cancer survivors. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of individuals who have survived at least 5 years following a cancer diagnosis, and to describe perceived unmet needs and interactions with primary care.

Methods:

Forty long-term survivors of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer were purposively selected for an in-depth qualitative study. We aimed for a maximum variation sample according to cancer site, gender, time since diagnosis, cancer needs, anxiety and depression. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded thematically using a grounded theory approach.

Results:

Analysis of the interview data is presented in four subthemes: the role they perceived for the general practitioner (GP), unmet needs, reasons for not using primary care for needs they perceived as cancer related, and ongoing care for cancer-related issues. The majority of cancer survivors did not see a role for their GP in their long-term care related to their cancer diagnosis as most considered that they did not need active follow-up, but some expressed a need for psychological services and information on possible long-term effects. Cancer survivors cited three main reasons for not using GP services in relation to their cancer diagnosis: GPs were seen as non-experts in cancer; they were perceived as too busy; and a lack of continuity within primary care made it difficult to talk about long-term issues. There was a wide variation in schedules and notification of PSA tests among the prostate cancer survivors.

Discussion:

The results from this project suggest that some cancer survivors have specific emotional and physical needs that could benefit from input from their primary care team, but not all cancer survivors look to their GP for their long-term cancer-related care. Better information care planning is required from specialists in order to identify those who would benefit most.

Views of health professionals on the role of primary care in the follow-up of men with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Follow-up care for prostate cancer has traditionally been led by secondary care in hospital out-patient clinics. As the number of men with prostate cancer increases and secondary care resources face pressure, alternative follow-up models are being sought. Current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance recommends follow-up outside the hospital setting for patients who are stable 2 years following radical treatment and for those undergoing 'watchful waiting'.

OBJECTIVE

To describe current practice in a sample of relevant health care professionals and to seek their views on the role of primary care in prostate cancer follow-up.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews with 38 UK health care professionals, from both secondary and primary care. Transcripts were analysed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

There are marked variations in current follow-up practice around the country, with hospital-based follow-up ranging from 6 months to lifetime. The predominant, although not universal, view expressed was that there is both scope and support for primary care to play a greater role, particularly for men with stable disease. This was qualified by the need for supporting education, including guidance on interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values, introduction of robust follow-up systems in primary care, easy access back into secondary (hospital) care, a mechanism for ensuring follow-up data can still be collected for audit purposes and appropriate resourcing.

CONCLUSIONS

If primary care is to play a significant role in providing high-quality follow-up care for men with prostate cancer, then steps need to be taken to address the barriers to increased primary care involvement identified by this study.

Primary Health and Supportive Care Needs of Long-Term Cancer Survivors: A Questionnaire Survey

Purpose

There are 1.2 million long-term cancer survivors in the United Kingdom. Existing research on the health and supportive care needs of these survivors is sparse and inconclusive. This study investigated health status, psychological morbidity, and supportive care needs in long-term cancer survivors in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Five to 16 years after diagnosis, 1,275 eligible survivors of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers were approached to participate in a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire explored health status (European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and supportive care needs (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Measure). Data were analyzed by type of cancer and time since diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of unmet supportive care needs.

Results

The response rate was 51.7% (659 survivors). Overall health status and levels of psychological morbidity were consistent with population norms. At least one unmet supportive care need was reported by 47.4% of survivors, but overall numbers of unmet needs were low (mean, 2.8; standard deviation, 4.8). The most frequently endorsed unmet need was for help to manage concerns about cancer recurrence. Trait anxiety (P < .001), nondischarged status (P < .01), dissatisfaction with discharge (P < .01), and receipt of hormonal therapy (P < .01) were predictive of unmet supportive care needs.

Conclusion

The findings suggest a majority of long-term breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors who have no signs of recurrence report good health and do not have psychological morbidity or large numbers of unmet supportive care needs. A minority of long-term survivors may benefit from ongoing support. The identification and support of those long-term survivors with ongoing needs is a key challenge for health care professionals.