Use of health services among long-term breast cancer survivors in Spain: longitudinal study based on real-world data.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate health service utilization in Spain among long-term breast cancer survivors and to compare it with that among women with no history of breast cancer. METHODS: Study based on the SURBCAN cohort includes a sample of long-term breast cancer survivors and a sample of women without breast cancer from 5 Spanish regions. Healthcare utilization was assessed through primary care, hospital visits, and tests during the follow-up period (2012 to 2016) by using electronic health records. Annual contact rates to healthcare services were calculated, and crude and multivariate count models were fitted to estimate the adjusted relative risk of healthcare services use. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 19,328 women, including 6512 long-term breast cancer survivors. Healthcare use was higher among breast cancer survivors (20.9 vs 16.6; p < 0.0001) and decreased from >10 years of survival. Breast cancer survivors who underwent a mastectomy were more likely to have a primary care visit (RR = 3.10 95% CI 3.08-3.11). Five to ten years survivors were more likely to have hospital inpatient visits and imaging test compared to women without breast cancer (RRa = 1.35 95% CI 1.30-1.39 and RRa = 1.27 95% CI 1.25-1.29 respectively). CONCLUSION: This study shows higher use of health services in long-term breast cancer survivors than in women without breast cancer regardless of survival time. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These results help to estimate the health resources needed for the growing group of breast cancer survivors and to identify risk factors that drive higher use of health services.

Multimorbidity clusters among long-term breast cancer survivors in Spain: Results of the SURBCAN study.

The disease management of long-term breast cancer survivors (BCS) is hampered by the scarce knowledge of multimorbidity patterns. The aim of our study was to identify multimorbidity clusters among long-term BCS and assess their impact on mortality and health services use. We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health records of 6512 BCS from Spain surviving at least 5 years. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify groups of similar patients based on their chronic diagnoses, which were assessed using the Clinical Classifications Software. As a result, multimorbidity clusters were obtained, clinically defined and named according to the comorbidities with higher observed/expected prevalence ratios. Multivariable Cox and negative binomial regression models were fitted to estimate overall mortality risk and probability of contacting health services according to the clusters identified. 83.7% of BCS presented multimorbidity, essential hypertension (34.5%) and obesity and other metabolic disorders (27.4%) being the most prevalent chronic diseases at the beginning of follow-up. Five multimorbidity clusters were identified: C1-unspecific (29.9%), C2-metabolic and neurodegenerative (28.3%), C3-anxiety and fractures (9.7%), C4-musculoskeletal and cardiovascular (9.6%) and C5-thyroid disorders (5.3%). All clusters except C5-thyroid disorders were associated with higher mortality compared to BCS without comorbidities. The risk of mortality in C4 was increased by 64% (adjusted hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.52-2.07). Stratified analysis showed an increased risk of death among BCS with 5 to 10 years of survival in all clusters. These results help to identify subgroups of long-term BCS with specific needs and mortality risks and to guide BCS clinical practice regarding multimorbidity.

Doctors' opinions on clinical coordination between primary and secondary care in the Catalan healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse doctors' opinions on clinical coordination between primary and secondary care in different healthcare networks and on the factors influencing it. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive-interpretative study was conducted, based on semi-structured interviews. A two-stage theoretical sample was designed: 1) healthcare networks with different management models; 2) primary care and secondary care doctors in each network. Final sample size (n = 50) was reached by saturation. A thematic content analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In all networks doctors perceived that primary and secondary care given to patients was coordinated in terms of information transfer, consistency and accessibility to SC following a referral. However, some problems emerged, related to difficulties in acceding non-urgent secondary care changes in prescriptions and the inadequacy of some referrals across care levels. Doctors identified the following factors: 1) organizational influencing factors: coordination is facilitated by mechanisms that facilitate information transfer, communication, rapid access and physical proximity that fosters positive attitudes towards collaboration; coordination is hindered by the insufficient time to use mechanisms, unshared incentives in prescription and, in two networks, the change in the organizational model; 2) professional factors: clinical skills and attitudes towards coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Although doctors perceive that primary and secondary care is coordinated, they also highlighted problems. Identified factors offer valuable insights on where to direct organizational efforts to improve coordination.

Development and testing of indicators to measure coordination of clinical information and management across levels of care.

BACKGROUND: Coordination across levels of care is becoming increasingly important due to rapid advances in technology, high specialisation and changes in the organization of healthcare services; to date, however, the development of indicators to evaluate coordination has been limited. The aim of this study is to develop and test a set of indicators to comprehensively evaluate clinical coordination across levels of care. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify indicators of clinical coordination across levels of care. These indicators were analysed to identify attributes of coordination and classified accordingly. They were then discussed within an expert team and adapted or newly developed, and their relevance, scientific soundness and feasibility were examined. The indicators were tested in three healthcare areas of the Catalan health system. RESULTS: 52 indicators were identified addressing 11 attributes of clinical coordination across levels of care. The final set consisted of 21 output indicators. Clinical information transfer is evaluated based on information flow (4) and the adequacy of shared information (3). Clinical management coordination indicators evaluate care coherence through diagnostic testing (2) and medication (1), provision of care at the most appropriate level (2), completion of diagnostic process (1), follow-up after hospital discharge (4) and accessibility across levels of care (4). The application of indicators showed differences in the degree of clinical coordination depending on the attribute and area. CONCLUSION: A set of rigorous and scientifically sound measures of clinical coordination across levels of care were developed based on a literature review and discussion with experts. This set of indicators comprehensively address the different attributes of clinical coordination in main transitions across levels of care. It could be employed to identify areas in which health services can be improved, as well as to measure the effect of efforts to improve clinical coordination in healthcare organizations.