GP involvement after a cancer diagnosis; patients' call to improve decision support

Improving Cancer Treatment Communication between Secondary and Primary Care: A New Format for Written Communication

In decision making for cancer treatment, information is crucial for patients and health care professionals. Although conversations about treatment decisions take place in hospitals, many patients also appreciate the insights of their general practitioner (GP). GPs indicated that, in order to have meaningful conversations about treatment decisions with their patients, they need additional information about treatment options and considerations, such as expected benefits and side effects. In this practice innovation, we developed and implemented a new written communication format from medical specialists to GPs, aimed at providing accurate treatment information to facilitate GPs in supporting patients with cancer in decision-making. The new format added 3 specific headings to standard letters in the electronic patient files (EPFs): (1) treatment options, (2) treatment considerations, and (3) treatment intent. This innovation was implemented in a large university hospital in the Netherlands between 2020 and 2021. We performed a process evaluation of the implementation using the RE-AIM model, based on assessment of written communication obtained from patients' EPFs, and telephonic interviews with specialists and GPs. In the Netherlands, all inhabitants are registered with a GP, who acts as a gatekeeper to specialist care, and has a comprehensive overview of a patient's history, based on digital communication with hospitals after referral for specialist care. EPFs are used to generate digital letters to communicate between medical specialists in a hospital and GPs outside the hospital. Incorporating new headings in the communication format in the EPF successfully encouraged medical specialists to share such information when used appropriately. Treatment options, considerations, and treatment intent were stated more often in the new format compared with the old format. GPs appreciated the new format, highlighting the value of including treatment considerations, which enhanced their comprehension of the medical specialist's thought processes. Recognition of the problem and motivation for improvement facilitated the implementation. Specialists stated the format to be time-efficient compared with the old format; however, technical improvements could make it easier to use. Automaticity to use of the old format, inadequate information, and technical issues were a barrier for implementation. In summary, a straightforward innovation can improve communication between medical specialists and GPs and promote the role of the GPs in decision making for cancer treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164.

CONCLUSIONS

GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of training general practitioners and nurses in shared decision-making (SDM) support as perceived by cancer patients and survivors.

DESIGN

An innovative, experimental design was adopted that included analogue patients (APs), that is, people who have or have had cancer and who imagine themselves in the position of the actor-patient presented in a video. Each AP assessed a video-recorded simulated consultation of a health care professional (HCP) conducted before or after an SDM support training program. The primary outcome was the APs' perceived SDM support with 13 self-developed items reflecting the perceived patient benefit of SDM support as well as the perceived HCP support behavior. Secondary outcomes included an overall rating of SDM support, AP-reported extent of SDM (CollaboRATE), satisfaction with the communication (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire), conversation appreciation and helpfulness, as well as decision-making satisfaction and confidence (visual analog scale, 0-100). In addition, patient and HCP characteristics associated with AP-perceived SDM support were examined.

RESULTS

APs (n = 131) did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs in their perceptions of SDM support nor in secondary outcomes. Agreement between APs' perceptions was poor. The higher the perceived comparability of the consultation with APs' previous personal experiences, the higher their rating of SDM support.

LIMITATIONS

We used a nonvalidated primary outcome and an innovative study design that should be tested in future work.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the study design, the training seemed to not affect cancer patients' and survivors' perceived SDM support.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical relevance of the training on SDM support needs to be established. The variation in APs' assessments suggests patients differ in their perception of SDM support, stressing the importance of patient-tailored SDM support.

HIGHLIGHTS

Cancer patients and survivors did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs when evaluating SDM support, and agreement between their perceptions was poor.The clinical relevance of training GPs and nurses in SDM support needs to be established.Patient-tailored SDM support may be recommended, given the variation in APs' assessments and their possible diverging perceptions of SDM support.This innovative study design (having patients watch and assess videos of simulated consultations made in the context of training evaluation) needs to be further developed.

Trusting relationships between patients with non-curative cancer and healthcare professionals create ethical obstacles for informed consent in clinical trials: a grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participation for patients with non-curative cancer is unlikely to present personal clinical benefit, which raises the bar for informed consent. Previous work demonstrates that decisions by patients in this setting are made within a 'trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals. The current study aimed to further illuminate the nuances of this relationship from both the patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives.

METHODS

Face-to-face interviews using a grounded theory approach were conducted at a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Interviews were performed with 34 participants (patients with non-curative cancer, number (n) = 16; healthcare professionals involved in the consent process, n = 18). Data analysis was performed after each interview using open, selective, and theoretical coding.

RESULTS

The 'Trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals underpinned patient motivation to participate, with many patients 'feeling lucky' and articulating an unrealistic hope that a clinical trial could provide a cure. Patients adopted the attitude of 'What the doctor thinks is best' and placed significant trust in healthcare professionals, focusing on mainly positive aspects of the information provided. Healthcare professionals recognised that trial information was not received neutrally by patients, with some expressing concerns that patients would consent to 'please' them. This raises the question: Within the trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, 'Is it possible to provide balanced information?'. The theoretical model identified in this study is central to understanding how the trusting professional-patient relationship influences the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

The significant trust placed on healthcare professionals by patients presented an obstacle to delivering balanced trial information, with patients sometimes participating to please the 'experts'. In this high-stakes scenario, it may be pertinent to consider strategies, such as separation of the clinician-researcher roles and enabling patients to articulate their care priorities and preferences within the informed consent process. Further research is needed to expand on these ethical conundrums and ensure patient choice and autonomy in trial participation are prioritised, particularly when the patient's life is limited.

Patient experiences of GP-led colon cancer survivorship care: a Dutch mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer survivorship care constitutes both follow-up and aftercare. GP involvement may help to personalise care.

AIM

To explore patients' experiences of GP-led versus surgeon-led survivorship care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients with stage I to III colon cancer were recruited from eight Dutch hospitals and randomised to receive care by either the GP or surgeon.

METHOD

A mixed-methods approach was used to compare GP-led care with surgeon-led care. After 1 year the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used to measure quality aspects of care. Next, interviews were performed at various time points (3-6 years after surgery) to explore patients' experiences in depth.

RESULTS

A total of 261 questionnaires were returned by patients and 25 semi-structured interviews were included in the study. Overall, patients were satisfied with both GP-led and surgeon-led care (ratings 9.6 [standard deviation {SD} 1.1] versus 9.4 [SD 1.1] out of 10). No important differences were seen in quality of care as measured by CQI. Interviews revealed that patients often had little expectation of care from either healthcare professional. They described follow-up consultations as short, medically oriented, and centred around discussing follow-up test results. Patients also reported few symptoms. Care for patients in the GP-led group was organised in different ways, ranging from solely on patient's initiative to shared care. Patients sometimes desired a more guiding role from their GP, whereas others preferred to be proactive themselves.

CONCLUSION

Patients experienced a high quality of colon cancer survivorship care from both GPs and surgeons. If the GP is going to be more involved, patients require a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.

Roles of general practitioners in shared decision-making for patients with cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The shared decision-making (SDM) process for the treatment of pancreatic and oesophageal cancer primarily takes place with healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the hospital setting. This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on their possible roles during this SDM process, their added value and their requirements for involvement in SDM.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 GPs about their views on SDM for patients with cancer. The interviews were analysed by two researchers using an inductive open coding approach.

RESULTS

Five potential roles in SDM were described by the interviewed GPs, of which the role as 'coach' of the patient was mentioned by all. GPs see their main added value as their long-standing relationship with the patient. To be able to participate optimally in SDM, GPs indicated that they need to be kept up to date during the patient's care process and should receive enough medical information about treatment options and contextual information.

CONCLUSION

GPs see different potential roles for themselves when involved in SDM. Hospital HCPs that want to facilitate GP involvement should take the initiative, provide the GPs with enough and timely information and must be easy to consult.

'You know where we are if you need us.' The role of primary care in supporting patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: a qualitative study

Background

Ten per cent of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy. It is known that these patients have unmet psychological support needs, and GPs are key in enabling effective coordination of care for people living with life-shortening conditions.

Aim

To explore patients’ perspectives on the role of primary care in their management, and their sources of support.

Design & setting

Inductive qualitative study of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy between 6 months and 6 years previously for pancreatic or distal biliary duct cancers. Participants were recruited by clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) from a single NHS trust in Northwest England.

Method

Semi-structured interviews, either face-to-face or via video link, were conducted with 20 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and anonymised. Thematic analysis utilised principles of constant comparison.

Results

Participants described immense treatment burden and uncertainty around the role of the GP in their ongoing care. They recognised that GPs may have little experience of patients who have undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy, but felt that GPs can play a vital role in offering support. Participants wished for emotional support postoperatively, and valued support networks including family and friends. However, they found expressing their deepest fears difficult. Participants felt they would value greater recognition by primary care of both physical and psychological sequelae of major pancreatic surgery, and the impact on their families.

Conclusion

Patients may feel themselves to be a ‘burden’ to both healthcare professionals and their own support networks following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Primary care is in a key position to proactively offer psychological support.

The role of the general practitioner in cancer care in general and with respect to complementary and alternative medicine for patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Cancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to assess the expectations of cancer patients towards their general practitioner (GP) regarding information on and offers of CAM procedures.

METHODS

A standardised anonymous questionnaire was developed and handed out to cancer patients in GP practices and oncology clinics in Germany.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty questionnaires were evaluable. For 88.1% of the patients, it was important that their GP regularly receives information on cancer therapy. Only a minority consulted with the GP regarding diagnosis and therapy of the cancer (32.4%) or approached him about side effects of the therapy (46.9%). About one fifth of the GPs offered CAM. Before the cancer diagnosis, only 7% of the patients received a CAM offer from the GP; after the diagnosis, it was 14%. A large majority wanted the GP to offer more complementary (70.9%) and alternative (54.3%) medicine.

CONCLUSION

Our survey points to a clear mismatch of supply and demand regarding CAM for cancer patients in the primary care sector. Training for GPs on scientific evidence of as well as communication skills on CAM will be indispensable in the future to optimise the care of cancer patients by GPs.

Quality of hospital discharge letters for patients at the end of life: A retrospective medical record review

Objective

For patients who are discharged to go home after a hospitalisation, timely and adequately informing their general practitioner is important for continuity of care, especially at the end of life. We studied the quality of the hospital discharge letter for patients who were hospitalised in their last year of life.

Methods

A retrospective medical record review was performed. Included patients had been admitted to the hospital during the period 1 January to 1 July 2017 and had died within a year after discharge.

Results

Data were collected from records of 108 patients with cancer or other diseases. For 57 patients (53%), the discharge letter included information that related to their limited life expectancy (e.g., agreements about treatment limitations), whereas the patient's limited life expectancy was addressed in the medical record in 76 cases (70%). We found related information in discharge letters for 36 patients (66%) who died <3 months compared to 21 patients (40%) who died 3–12 months after hospitalisation (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

For patients with a limited life expectancy going home after a hospitalisation, one out of two hospital discharge letters lacked any information addressing their limited life expectancy. Specific guidelines for medical information exchange between care settings are needed.

Role of GPs in shared decision making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: a qualitative study in the Netherlands

Background

GPs are well placed to enhance shared decision making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs’ views about their contribution to SDM.

Aim

To explore GPs’ perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the requirements they report to fulfil this role.

Design and setting

Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs.

Method

GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Fifteen GPs took part in this study. Most of them reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM, and enabling SDM. Even though most of the GPs believed that decision making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist’s responsibility, they did recognise their added value in the SDM process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions, and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare providers at the end of life. Requirements for them to support the SDM process were described as: good collaboration with oncologists; sufficient information about the disease and its treatment; time to engage in conversations about treatment; a trusting relationship with patients; and patient-centred communication.

Conclusion

GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM process to reach high-quality decisions. This conceptualisation of the GP’s supporting role in SDM may help us to understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM process.

Treatment goals and changes over time in older patients with non-curable cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period.

RESULTS

Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms).

CONCLUSION

Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPTion study: NTR5419.