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

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.

Current practice patterns and gaps in guideline-concordant breast cancer survivorship care

Purpose Breast cancer-specific survivorship care guidelines for the more than 3.8 million survivors in the U.S. are available, but implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. We examined current practice patterns and factors associated with guideline-concordant survivorship care among oncologists. Methods A national sample of medical oncologists, recruited using two databases, participated in a survey focused on practice patterns for breast cancer survivorship care. A “survivorship care composite score” was calculated for each respondent based on provision of services recommended in the survivorship guidelines. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between physician and practice characteristics and composite scores. Results The survey was completed by 217 medical oncologists, with an overall response rate of 17.9% and eligibility rate of 56.9% for those who responded. Oncologists reported high engagement in evaluation of disease recurrence (78%). Performed less frequently were the provision of survivorship care plans (46%), assessment of psychosocial long-term and late effects (34%), and screening for subsequent cancers (34%). Lack of survivorship care training (p = 0.038) and not routinely informing patients about potential late effects (p = 0.003) were significantly associated with poorer survivorship care composite scores. Conclusions Despite the availability of disease-specific survivorship care guidelines, adherence to their recommendations in clinical practice is suboptimal. Survey results identified key gaps in survivorship care for breast cancer survivors, particularly related to subsequent primary cancers and psychosocial long-term and late effects. Implications for Cancer Survivors Improving the delivery of comprehensive survivorship care for the growing population of breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Disease-specific clinical guidelines for cancer survivorship provide valuable recommendations, but innovative strategies are needed to integrate them into the care of long-term breast cancer survivors.

Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care

Transitioning survivorship care from oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs) is a reasonable alternative to oncologist-led care. This study assessed oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding sharing/transitioning survivorship care. A prospective survey of oncologists within a regional cancer program assessing self-reported barriers and facilitators to sharing/transitioning survivorship care was disseminated. In total, 63% (n = 39) of surveyed oncologists responded. Patient preference (89%) and anxiety (84%) are key to transition of care decisions; reduced remuneration (95%) and fewer longitudinal relationships (63%) do not contribute. Oncologists agreed that more patients could be shared/transitioned. Barriers include treatment-related toxicities (82% agree), tumor-specific factors (60–90% agree) and perception of PCP willingness to participate in survivorship care (47% agree). Oncologists appear willing to share/transition more survivors to PCPs, though barriers exist that warrant further study. Understanding these issues is critical to developing policies supporting comprehensive survivorship care models that address both cancer and non-cancer health needs. The demonstrated feasibility of this project warrants a larger-scale survey of oncologists with respect to the transition of survivorship care to PCPs, to further inform effective interventions to support high-quality survivorship care.