Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs.
Liemburg, G.B., Korevaar, J.C., Zomeren, W.T.G. van, Berendsen, A.J., Brandenburg, D. Follow-up of curatively treated cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of the views of Dutch GPs. British Journal of General Practice: 2022, 72(721), p. e592-e600.
Lees online
Background
Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).
Aim
To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.
Design and setting
A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.
Method
Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.
Results
Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients' homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.
Conclusion
Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.
Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).
Aim
To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.
Design and setting
A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.
Method
Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.
Results
Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients' homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.
Conclusion
Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.
Background
Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).
Aim
To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.
Design and setting
A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.
Method
Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.
Results
Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients' homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.
Conclusion
Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.
Follow-up for cancer typically occurs in secondary care, and improved survival has increased demands on these services. Other care models may alleviate this burden, such as moving (parts of) follow-up care for curatively treated patients from secondary to primary care (care substitution).
Aim
To explore the opinions of GPs regarding the potential benefits, barriers, and requirements of care substitution for breast and colorectal cancer.
Design and setting
A qualitative study of the opinions of purposively sampled GPs in Dutch primary care.
Method
Focus group sessions and individual semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis.
Results
Two focus groups (n = 14) were conducted followed by nine individual interviews. Three main themes were identified: perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and perceived requirements. Perceived benefits included better accessibility and continuity of care, and care closer to patients' homes. Uncertainty about cancer-related competences and practical objections were perceived as barriers. Requirements included close specialist collaboration, support from patients for this change, and stepwise implementation to avoid loss of existing care quality.
Conclusion
Most GPs reported that they were not in favour of complete care substitution, but that primary care could have greater formal involvement in oncological follow-up if there is close collaboration with secondary care (that is, shared care), support from patients, sufficient resource allocation, stepwise implementation with clear guidelines, and monitoring of quality. Clear and broadly supported protocols need to be developed and tested before implementing follow-up in primary care.