Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP). OBJECTIVE(S): To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways. METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France. RESULTS: Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient. CONCLUSION: In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

In the management of patients with cancer, the division of tasks between health professionals was not clear and was not discussed by the group.Communication within the health professionals was mediated often by the patient.Interprofessional collaboration is strongly encouraged by France's public health policies but was not mentioned or put into practice by the health professionals.

Interprofessional follow-up of patients with cancer in France (the SINPATIC study): a preliminary, qualitative study of the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 19.2 million people were diagnosed with cancer, and nearly 10 million cancer patients died worldwide. An effective cancer care pathway must be based on coordination, multidisciplinarity, a personalized approach, and collaboration between stakeholders. Follow-up can be improved by good collaboration and communication between GPs and the cancer care team at a common level of organization. OBJECTIVES: To study patients with solid cancers and assess their perceptions of the care pathway, the roles of the healthcare professionals involved, and interprofessional collaboration. METHODS: In a preliminary, qualitative study (part of the SINPATIC study of general practitioners, oncologists, nurses, and patients), adult patients with cancer in the Paris area of France were interviewed between January and April 2018. Using purposive sampling, 10 patients were recruited from hospital departments and primary care. An interview guide explored 3 themes: the care pathway, the stakeholders' roles in follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration. RESULTS: For patients, dealing with cancer is a complex process of awareness, care provision, decision-making, task assignment, a lack of clarification of professional roles, a piecemeal announcement of the diagnosis of cancer by several stakeholders, organizational and administrative difficulties, non-formal collaboration in inertia (tending towards collaboration under construction), and with cancer follow-up that was usually parallel, sometimes shared, rarely sequential. CONCLUSION: This SINPATIC substudy provided us a better understanding of the complexity of the patient care pathway. Looking forward, the present findings might stimulate thoughts on the design and development of interventional studies.

Prescription of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs among older patients in primary care: a French, national, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In France, general practitioners (GPs) prescribe benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (BZD/ZDs) widely, and especially to older adults. Several characteristics of patients and/or GPs linked to BZD/ZD overprescription have been described in the general population but not among older patients in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the proportion of GP consultations by patients aged 65 and over that resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription, and determine whether any GP-related factors predicted BZD/ZD overprescription in this setting. METHODS: We analyzed sociodemographic and practice-related GP characteristics, and aggregated data on consultations recorded prospectively by 117 GPs in a database between 2000 and 2010. Next, we used logistic regression models to look for factors potentially associated with BZD/ZD overprescription (defined as an above-median prescription rate). RESULTS: The GPs' mean age at inclusion was 47.4 (7.1), and 87.9% were male. During the study period, the median (95% confidence interval) proportion of consultations with patients aged 65 and over resulting in a BZD/ZD prescription was 21.8% (18.1-26.1) (range per GP: 5-34.1%). In a multivariable analysis, a greater number of chronic disease (OR [95% CI] = 2.10 [1.22-3.64]), a greater number of drugs prescribed per consultation (5.29 [2.72-10.28]), and shorter study participation were independently associated with BZD/ZD overprescription. CONCLUSIONS: BZD/ZD overprescription was associated with a greater chronic disease burden and the number of drugs prescribed per consultation but not with any sociodemographic or practice-related GP characteristics. Targeted actions are needed to help GPs limit their prescription of BZD/ZDs to older patients with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

In France, general practitioners (GPs) prescribe benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (BZD/ZDs) widely, and especially to older adults. Even though BZD/ZDs may not have a favorable risk­benefit ratio in older patients, we lack data on GP-related factors that might influence BZD/ZD overprescription in our population. The objectives of the present study were to (i) estimate the proportion of GP consultations by patients aged 65 and over that resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription and (ii) identify GP-related factors that were predictive of overprescription. To achieve this goal, we analyzed consultation notes registered by 117 GPs in a database curated by the French Society of General Practice between 2000 and 2010. About 22% of consultations by patients aged 65 and over resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription. With regard to the GPs, we did not find any sociodemographic or practice-related characteristics associated with overprescription. A greater chronic disease burden and the number of drug prescriptions (other than BZD/ZDs) per consultation was independently associated with overprescription. Targeted actions are therefore needed to help GPs limit their prescription of BZD/ZDs in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

Changes over time in attitudes towards the management of older patients with heart failure by general practitioners: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) are common in older patients, who are usually treated by general practitioners (GPs). In 2007, the French ICAGE study explored GPs' attitudes to the management of this condition in older patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore changes over time in GPs' attitudes towards the management of CHF in patients aged ≥75 and to identify barriers to optimal management. METHODS: In 2015, we performed a qualitative study of 20 French GPs via semi-structured interviews and a thematic content analysis. The results were compared with the findings of a 2007 study. RESULTS: In 2015, the perceived barriers to diagnosis were the same as in 2007. Echocardiography was still the preferred diagnostic method but the GPs relied on the cardiologist to confirm the diagnosis. Many GPs were still unaware of the different types of CHF. In contrast, they reported greater knowledge of decompensation factors and the ultrasound criteria for CHF. They also prescribed a brain natriuretic peptide assay more frequently. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers were more strongly perceived to be core treatments. Few GPs initiated drug treatments and optimized dosages. Although patient education was never mentioned, the importance of multidisciplinary care was emphasized. CONCLUSION: Our results evidenced a small recent improvement in the management of older patients with CHF. Appropriate guidelines and training for GPs, patient education and multidisciplinary collaboration might further improve the care given to this population.

Predictive factors for non-participation or partial participation in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes†.

BACKGROUND: No study has investigated factors associated with non-participation or partial participation in the different combination patterns of screening programmes for all three cancers, that is, breast, colorectal and cervical cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we sought to describe combinations of cancer screening participation rates among women in the Val-de-Marne area of France and to identify individual and contextual factors associated with non-participation or partial participation. RESULTS: Women aged between 50 and 65 and who were eligible for all three screening programmes (n = 102 219) were analysed in multilevel logistic models, with the individual as the Level 1 variable and the place of residence as the Level 2 variable. The women who did not participate in any of the screening programmes were 34.4%, whereas 30.1%, 24% and 11.5% participated in one, two or all three screening programmes, respectively. Age below 55, a previous false-positive mammography, prior opportunistic mammography only, no previous mammography, membership of certain health insurance schemes (all P < 0.05) and residence in a deprived area (P < 0.001) were independently associated with non-participation or partial participation. We observed a stronger effect of deprivation on non-participation in all three cancers than in combinations of screening programmes. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the health authorities should focus on improving cancer screenings in general rather than screenings for specific types of cancer, especially among younger women and those living in the most socially deprived areas.

Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study).

INTRODUCTION: Older patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02664454; Pre-results.