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

2022 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien A. M. Vos ◽  
Robin de Best ◽  
Laura A. M. Duineveld ◽  
Henk C. P. M. van Weert ◽  
Kristel M. van Asselt

Abstract Background With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas). Methods Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs’ experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework. Results Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs’ work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs’ commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients’ initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs’ lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients’ use of eHealth. Conclusions GPs’ opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860. Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2020.0856
Author(s):  
Laura Swaithes ◽  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Helen Duffy ◽  
Nicola Evans ◽  
Christian Mallen ◽  
...  

Background: Group consultations are a relatively new concept in UK primary care and are a suggested solution to current workload pressures in general practice. However, little is known about the experience of implementing and delivering this approach from staff and organisational perspectives. Aim: To explore the experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in general practice. Design: Qualitative telephone interview study. Methods: Topic guides explored the perspectives and experiences of general practice staff on the implementation and delivery of group consultations. Data analysis adopted principles of the Framework Method underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Interviews were conducted with 8 GPs, 8 Practice Nurses, 1 Nurse Associate, 1 Practice Pharmacist, 1 deputy Practice Manager, 1 Healthcare Assistant. Four themes were identified: sense making of group consultations; the work associated with initiating group consultations; the experiences of operationalising group consultations; and sustaining change. Group consultations made sense to participants as a mechanism to reduce burden on primary care, enhance multi-disciplinary working, and provide patient-centred care. Implementation required strong leadership from a ‘champion’, and a facilitator had a pivotal role in operationalising the approach. The associated workload was often underestimated. Barriers to embedding change included achieving whole practice buy-in, competing practice priorities, and system-level flexibility. Conclusion: General practice clinicians enjoyed group consultations, yet significant work is required to initiate and sustain the approach. An implementation plan considering leadership, roles and responsibilities and wider organisational support is required at the outset. Further research or evaluation is needed to measure process outcomes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Noreen Aziz ◽  
Anne-Michelle Noone ◽  
Julia H. Rowland ◽  
Arnold L. Potosky ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e010777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura A M Duineveld ◽  
Thijs Wieldraaijer ◽  
Jan Wind ◽  
Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw ◽  
Henk C P M van Weert ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (700) ◽  
pp. e825-e832
Author(s):  
Carol Sinnott ◽  
Alexandros Georgiadis ◽  
Mary Dixon-Woods

BackgroundOperational failures, defined as inadequacies or errors in the information, supplies, or equipment needed for patient care, are known to be highly consequential in hospital environments. Despite their likely relevance for GPs’ experiences of work, they remain under-explored in primary care.AimTo identify operational failures in the primary care work environment and to examine how they influence GPs’ work.Design and settingQualitative interview study in the East of England.MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 21). Data analysis was based on the constant comparison method.ResultsGPs reported a large burden of operational failures, many of them related to information transfer with external healthcare providers, practice technology, and organisation of work within practices. Faced with operational failures, GPs undertook ‘compensatory labour’ to fulfil their duties of coordinating and safeguarding patients’ care. Dealing with operational failures imposed significant additional strain in the context of already stretched daily schedules, but this work remained largely invisible. In part, this was because GPs acted to fix problems in the here-and-now rather than referring them to source, and they characteristically did not report operational failures at system level. They also identified challenges in making process improvements at practice level, including medicolegal uncertainties about delegation.ConclusionOperational failures in primary care matter for GPs and their experience of work. Compensatory labour is burdensome with an unintended consequence of rendering these failures largely invisible. Recognition of the significance of operational failures should stimulate efforts to make the primary care work environment more attractive.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Mandy Swiecichowski ◽  
Amye Tevaarwerk ◽  
Mark Juckett ◽  
James Edward Haine ◽  
Kirsten Norslien ◽  
...  

57 Background: BMT survivors are underrepresented in survivorship research, yet are at high risk for complications. Practice guidelines are vague, non-BMT clinicians are inadequately informed, and communication between BMT and non-BMT clinicians is inconsistent. Our objective is to develop EHR-integrated survivorship care planning that is user-centered, supports non-BMT clinician and survivor needs, but does not adversely impact clinical workflow. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of clinicians (primary care, oncology, BMT), engineers, and EHR analysts used a systems engineering approach to identify barriers and facilitators to BMT survivorship care planning. The team identified patient data categories to include in BMT survivorship care plan (SCP) templates, as well as examined tasks, technology, workflows and individual roles and responsibilities necessary to support care planning. Results: Facilitators include: potential for EHR to discretely capture individual diagnosis and treatment data to create accurate SCPs addressing survivor and primary care information needs. Barriers are: lack of EHR inter-operability which prevents sharing of patient data outside the BMT center’s EHR system, reliance on manual entry of critical data elements into the SCP (i.e. majority of the 88 patient data categories, identified by the team, are non-discrete in the EHR), inefficient or absent survivorship workflows, lack of resources (including time, dedicated clinical staff, space, SCP content), poorly defined roles and responsibilities for survivorship care provision, and lack of evidence-based BMT survivorship guidelines. Conclusions: Work system barriers impede use of the EHR to support survivorship care planning. Steps to overcome barriers: design discrete fields in the EHR to support patient-level data capture, re-engineer existing workflows to support survivorship care planning, obtain BMT program consensus on SCP content, and evaluate user-centeredness of SCPs. This research has the potential to improve feasibility and sustainability of survivorship care planning activities, resulting in improved communication and care coordination for BMT survivors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 52-52
Author(s):  
Lewis E. Foxhall

52 Background: An estimated 14 million cancer survivors live in the U.S., with up to 18 million expected by 2020. Methods: We established a partnership with three Texas family medicine training programs to provide interactive educational sessions focused on survivors’ needs for primary prevention and lifestyle counseling, surveillance and screening, and prevention of psychosocial and long-term effects. Surveys assessing resident and PCP knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management were administered through REDCap in July 2016 and 2017. Results: Baseline response rates were 64% (60/94) and 59% (55/93) at follow-up. Compared to baseline, providers at follow-up were significantly more likely to report being “very confident” in their knowledge about: appropriate surveillance to detect recurrent breast cancer (5% vs 24%; p = 0.01); long-term physical effects of colon cancer and its treatment (8% vs 18%; p = 0.04); potential adverse psychosocial outcomes of colon cancer treatment (24% vs 44%; p = 0.01); appropriate screening for new primary breast (29% vs 61%; p < 0.001) and colon cancers (27% vs 51%; p = 0.01); and preventive lifestyle/behavioral counseling for breast (39% vs 59%; p = 0.03) and colon cancers (37% vs 59%; p = 0.01). Participants were also more likely to “strongly agree” that they have the skills necessary to: provide follow-up care related to the colon cancer and its treatment (10% vs 28%; p = 0.02); initiate appropriate screening for other new primary cancers for breast (28% vs 56%; p < 0.01) and colon cancer survivors (28% vs 58%; p < 0.01); and conduct lifestyle/behavioral counseling to prevent cancer for breast (33% vs 53%; p = 0.03) and colon cancer survivors (34% vs 55%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest our project has improved provider knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management, with the highest levels in areas pertaining to screening and prevention. We aim to continue this trajectory of improvement in subsequent project years and disseminate the project to other primary care training sites in Texas and beyond.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Salz ◽  
K. C. Oeffinger ◽  
P. R. Lewis ◽  
R. L. Williams ◽  
R. L. Rhyne ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 3408-3419
Author(s):  
Dominique Tremblay ◽  
Nassera Touati ◽  
Karine Bilodeau ◽  
Catherine Prady ◽  
Susan Usher ◽  
...  

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document