Cross-sectoral video consultation in cancer care: GPs' evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

The effect of virtual specialist conferences between endocrinologists and general practitioners about type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized superiority trial

BACKGROUND

To support the primary care sector in delivering high-quality type 2 diabetes (T2D), literature reviews emphasize the need for implementing models of collaboration that in a simple and effective way facilitate clinical dialogue between general practitioners (GPs) and endocrinologists. The overall aim of the project is to evaluate if virtual specialist conferences between GPs and endocrinologists about patients living with T2D is clinically effective and improves diabetes competences and organization in general practice in comparison to usual practice.

METHODS

A prospective, pragmatic, and superiority RCT with two parallel arms of general practices in the Municipality of Aarhus, Denmark. All general practices are invited (n = 100). The intervention runs for 12 months and consists of four virtual conferences between endocrinologists and an individual general practice. Before the first conference, an introductory webinar teaches GPs about how to use an IT-platform to identify and manage T2D patients. The main analysis (month 12) concerns the difference between the intervention and control arm. It is expected that the virtual conferences at the patient level will improve adherence to international recommendations on diabetes medication for T2D patients and improve the risk profile with a reduction in glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure, and cholesterol. The study design allows for identifying a significant difference between the intervention (n = 15) and control group (n = 15) regarding the three primary clinical outcomes with a power of 0.8870-0.9941. At the general practice level, it is expected that general practitioners and practice staff in the intervention group will improve self-reported diabetes competence and organization. The control arm will get the intervention when the primary intervention ends (months 12-24), and the intervention arm transitions to a maintenance phase.

DISCUSSION

The potential of virtual conferences is yet to be fully tapped because of methodological limitations. Studies have also not yet systematically evaluated virtual conferences in the context of chronic care using a high-quality research design. Given the nature of this real-life intervention, general practitioners and endocrinologists cannot be blinded to their allocation to either the intervention or comparison arm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, United States National Institutes of Health trial ID: NCT05268081. Registered on 4 March 2022.

Adapting patients' oncological treatment through remote participation of general practitioners in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings: A feasibility study

Background

The general practitioner (GP) is central to managing patients with cancer, whose numbers are increasing worldwide. The GP’s involvement requires better coordination between involved partners, in particular oncologists and GPs.

Objectives

To conduct a feasibility study of remote participation of GPs in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings (MCMs). We analysed participation, participants’ satisfaction, and their impact on therapeutic decisions.

Methods

We conducted a feasibility study in the regional cancer centre of Toulouse, France. All patient cases discussed in the MCMs for myelodysplasia from 1 January to 31 March 2016 were included. Cases of patients aged over 18 years, with a diagnosis of myelodysplasia and registered with a GP were included if patients gave informed consent. One investigator collected the data provided by GPs during three telephone or video calls: before, during, and after the MCM, respectively.

Results

Of 86 patient cases discussed during three months of MCMs, 44 were eligible for GP participation; 27 GPs participated in discussions of 27 patient cases. The GP’s participation in the MCM led to a change in management in five cases, with four times treatment intensifications and once de-intensification. Medical, social, family-related, and psychological domains were discussed with input from the GPs. Overall, all participants were satisfied with the MCMs.

Conclusion

Remote participation of GPs in MCMs is feasible and may result in adapting oncological and haematological management for patients. This patient-centred approach requires a specific organisation that, when implemented, satisfies the needs of all participants.