Patients' views on general practitioners' role during treatment and follow-up of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.

Purpose: To clarify experiences and preferences of patients regarding the current and future role of GPs during treatment and follow-up care of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Qualitative semi-structured, audio-recorded, face-to-face interviews in patients' homes in the north of the Netherlands were performed. Patients were sampled purposively on age, gender, time since diagnoses and primary health care use. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically by two independent researchers until saturation was reached. Results: Twenty-two patients were interviewed. GPs played a significant and highly valued role directly after surgery by proactively contacting their patients and offered support in clarification of medical issues, lifestyle advice and care for treatment-related side effects. During follow-up, GPs provided psychosocial support for patients and family members, besides routine health care. Concerning the organization of future follow-up care, most patients expressed a preference for specialist-led services; some said that primary care-led care would be more accessible and less expensive. Conclusion: Although at present patients perceived their GP is involved in CRC care, they would prefer their follow-up care in a hospital setting. If, in line with recent insights, future follow-up care might become more relying on testing for markers instead of imaging, there may be scope for incorporating this care in current GP routines.

Patients' preferences for post-treatment breast cancer follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' preferences for follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with 70 female patients with a history of early-stage breast cancer. Using descriptive content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed independently and thematically by two researchers. FINDINGS: Patients expressed the strongest preference for annual visits (31/68), a schedule with a decreasing frequency over time (27/68), and follow-up > 10 years, including lifelong follow-up (20/64). The majority (56/61) preferred to receive follow-up care from the same care provider over time, for reasons related to a personal doctor-patient relationship and the physician's knowledge of the patient's history. About 75% (43/56) preferred specialist follow-up to other follow-up models. However, primary care-based follow-up would be accepted by 57% (39/68) provided that there is good communication between GPs and specialists, and sufficient knowledge among GPs about follow-up. Perceived benefits of primary care-based follow-up referred to the personal nature of the GP-patient relationship and the easy access to primary care. Perceived barriers included limited oncology knowledge and skills, time available, motivation among GPs to provide follow-up care and patients' confidence with the present specialist follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients were open to primary care-based follow-up. Patients' confidence with this follow-up model may increase by using survivorship care plans to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training GPs to improve their oncology knowledge and skills might also increase patients' confidence.

Increased primary health care use in the first year after colorectal cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: The view that the general practitioner (GP) should be more involved during the curative treatment of cancer is gaining support. This study aimed to assess the current role of the GP during treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Historical prospective study, using primary care data from two cohorts. SETTING: Registration Network Groningen (RNG) consisting of 18 GPs in three group practices with a dynamic population of about 30,000 patients. SUBJECTS: Patients who underwent curative treatment for CRC (n = 124) and matched primary care patients without CRC (reference population; n = 358). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary healthcare use in the period 1998-2009. FINDINGS: Patients with CRC had higher primary healthcare use in the year after diagnosis compared with the reference population. After correction for age, gender, and consultation behaviour, CRC patients had 54% (range 23-92%) more face-to-face contacts, 68% (range 36-108%) more drug prescriptions, and 35% (range -4-90%) more referrals compared with reference patients. Patients consulted their GP more often for reasons related to anaemia, abdominal pain, constipation, skin problems, and urinary infections. GPs also prescribed more acid reflux drugs, laxatives, anti-anaemic preparations, analgesics, and psycholeptics for CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GP plays a significant role in the year after CRC diagnosis. This role may be associated with treatment-related side effects and psychological problems. Formal guidelines on the involvement of the GP during CRC treatment might ensure more effective allocation and communication of care between primary and secondary healthcare services.

Increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the current role of the general practitioner (GP) in breast cancer follow-up care. This study explores primary healthcare use in the period after completion of primary breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A total of 336 women with a history of early-stage breast cancer treated with curative intent were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen (RNG) (1998-2007) and matched with a reference population of 983 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP. RESULTS: Over the entire follow-up period (starting 1 year post-diagnosis), the median numbers of face-to-face contacts, drug prescriptions, and referrals in the patient group were significantly higher than those in the reference group: 4.0 vs. 3.2/year, 12.3 vs. 8.4/year, and 0.4 vs. 0.3/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001 for all differences. At least one annual face-to-face contact was observed for 96.7 % of patients and 92.9 % of women from the reference population (Chi-square test p = 0.011). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts for reasons related to breast cancer or were prescribed hormone antagonists and aromatase inhibitors to treat breast cancer. The main predictor of higher rates of face-to-face contacts and drug prescriptions was a higher age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increased primary healthcare utilisation among women with a history of breast cancer, especially among the elderly. When follow-up is transferred to the primary care setting, new responsibilities of GPs might be incorporated into existing primary healthcare delivery.

Role of the general practitioner during the active breast cancer treatment phase: an analysis of health care use.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the actual involvement of the general practitioner (GP) during the active breast cancer treatment phase. Therefore, this study explored (disease-specific) primary health care use among women undergoing active treatment for breast cancer compared with women without breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 185 women with a first diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer between 1998 and 2007 were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen and matched with a reference population of 548 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP. RESULTS: Since diagnosis, patients with breast cancer had twice as many face-to-face contacts compared with women from the reference population (median 6.0 vs 3.0/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001). The median number of drug prescriptions and referrals was also significantly higher among patients than among the reference population (11.0 vs 7.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001 and 1.0 vs 0.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts or were prescribed drugs for reasons related to breast cancer and its treatment, including gastrointestinal problems, psychological reasons and endocrine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: During the active breast cancer treatment phase, GPs are involved in the management of treatment-related side effects and psychological symptoms, as well as in the administration of endocrine therapy. Based on the findings of this study, interventions across the primary/secondary interface can be planned to improve quality of life and other outcomes in patients undergoing breast cancer treatment.

Patients' beliefs about the aims of breast cancer follow-up: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' beliefs about the aims of breast cancer follow-up, and to compare these with the current literature on best practice for survivor care. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the literature on breast cancer and interviewed 61 women with a history of early-stage breast cancer. By means of descriptive content analysis with qualitative and quantitative elements, the patients' verbatim responses were thematically and independently analysed by two researchers. Results were compared with current literature and breast cancer guidelines. RESULTS: When patients were asked to comment on what they thought the aims of breast cancer follow-up were, they most frequently mentioned 'detection of recurrence' and 'receiving reassurance', followed by 'receiving psychological support', and 'collecting data to evaluate care'. Some patients explicitly mentioned 'surveillance for metastatic disease' as an aim of follow-up. However, some patients believed that breast cancer could not recur after 2-5 years of follow-up, and that recurrences could not develop directly after or between follow-up appointments. In relation to follow-up appointments, some patients experienced anxiety, while others felt it made them confront their breast cancer history. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' beliefs are often not in line with guidelines. Educating patients about the aims of follow-up, and the evidence underlying it, might be important, in part to make patients' expectations more realistic.

Discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care at the end of hospital follow-up: a cross-sectional survey.

AIM: The present study explored (a) the discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care by specialists, at the end of hospital follow-up and (b) the experiences and views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding transfer of follow-up to the primary care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed by sending a self-administered questionnaire to 960 GPs working in the three northern provinces of the Netherlands. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 949 eligible questionnaires, 502 were returned, providing an adjusted response rate of 53%. In the year before the survey took place, one or more patients aged >60 years, and 5 years after breast-conserving therapy, were discharged to 22% of GPs (n=112) for follow-up. According to 56% of these GPs, transfer of follow-up was communicated by the hospital. The initiative to arrange follow-up visits and mammography appointments was mainly taken by patients. In this survey, 40% of GPs (n=200) were willing to accept exclusive responsibility for follow-up earlier than 5 years after completion of active treatment. Perceived barriers in current and future primary care-based follow-up included: communication with breast cancer specialists, patients' preference for specialist follow-up, GPs' oncology knowledge and skills and the organisation of follow-up in general practice. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-based follow-up might be improved if breast cancer specialists discharge patients more actively to their GPs. Survivorship care plans are needed to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training of GPs and developing administrative tools may be helpful in arranging follow-up care and using guidelines in general practice.