Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. METHODS: The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. CONCLUSIONS: Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

[The interface between primary and secondary care in dentistry in the Unified Health System (SUS): an integrative systematic review]. / Interface entre a Atenção Primária e a Secundária em odontologia no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma revisão sistemática integrativa.

Secondary care in dentistry in Brazil has scarce and broadly underutilized resources. The challenge is to organize the interface between primary health care (PHC) and secondary care in order to consolidate the population's access to specialist dental care in the Unified Health System (SUS). This article seeks to analyze national publications in Portuguese and English on the interface between secondary health care and primary health care in dentistry from the perspective of comprehensive care in the SUS. It is an integrative review, considering the publications of the following databases: SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature) WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS, PubMed (International Literature on Health Sciences) and GOOGLE SCHOLAR. The search located 966 articles, of which 12 were used in full. Coverage of the oral health teams (ESB) in the family health strategy (ESF), primary health care implementation in a structured way, access to secondary health care, counter-referral to PHC, development of indicators and socioeconomic conditions and inequalities in the distribution of dental specialist centers (CEO) are factors that influence the integrity of oral health care in the SUS.

Interface entre a Atenção Primária e a Secundária em odontologia no Sistema Único de Saúde: uma revisão sistemática integrativa / The interface between primary and secondary care in dentistry in the Unified Health System (SUS): an integrative systematic review

Resumo A atenção secundária em odontologia no Brasil apresenta recursos escassos e em grande parte subutilizados. O desafio consiste em realizar a interface entre a atenção primária à saúde (APS) e a atenção secundária de forma a consolidar o acesso da população à atenção odontológica especializada no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). O objetivo deste artigo é analisar publicações nacionais em língua portuguesa e inglesa sobre a interface entre a atenção secundária e a APS em odontologia na perspectiva da integralidade do cuidado no âmbito do SUS. Revisão integrativa considerando as publicações dos seguintes bancos de dados: SciELO (Scientific Eletronic Library Online), Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe), Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed (Literatura Internacional em Ciências da Saúde) e Google Acadêmico. Foram encontrados 966 artigos, dos quais 12 foram utilizados na integra. A cobertura das equipes de saúde bucal (ESB) nas estratégias de saúde da família (ESF), a implantação da APS de forma estruturada, o acesso a atenção secundária, o contrarreferenciamento para APS, os indicadores de desenvolvimento e as condições socioeconômicas e desigualdades na distribuição dos CEO's são fatores que influenciam a integralidade do cuidado em saúde bucal no SUS.

Abstract Secondary care in dentistry in Brazil has scarce and broadly underutilized resources. The challenge is to organize the interface between primary health care (PHC) and secondary care in order to consolidate the population's access to specialist dental care in the Unified Health System (SUS). This article seeks to analyze national publications in Portuguese and English on the interface between secondary health care and primary health care in dentistry from the perspective of comprehensive care in the SUS. It is an integrative review, considering the publications of the following databases: SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature) WEB OF SCIENCE, SCOPUS, PubMed (International Literature on Health Sciences) and GOOGLE SCHOLAR. The search located 966 articles, of which 12 were used in full. Coverage of the oral health teams (ESB) in the family health strategy (ESF), primary health care implementation in a structured way, access to secondary health care, counter-referral to PHC, development of indicators and socioeconomic conditions and inequalities in the distribution of dental specialist centers (CEO) are factors that influence the integrity of oral health care in the SUS.

Impact of a general practitioner-led integrated model of care on the cost of potentially preventable diabetes-related hospitalisations.

AIM: To estimate potential savings for Australia's health care system through the implementation of an innovative Beacon model of care for patients with complex diabetes. METHODS: A prospective controlled trial was conducted comparing a multidisciplinary, community-based, integrated primary-secondary care diabetes service with usual care at a hospital diabetes outpatient clinic. We extracted patient hospitalisation data from the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection and used Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups to assign costs to potentially preventable hospitalisations for diabetes. RESULTS: 327 patients with complex diabetes referred by their general practitioner for specialist outpatient care were included in the analysis. The integrated model of care had potential for national cost savings of $132.5 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in hospitalisations attributable to better integrated primary/secondary care can yield large cost savings. Models such as the Beacon are highly relevant to current national health care reform initiatives to improve the continuity and efficiency of care for those with complex chronic disease in primary care.