Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice. METHODS: This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature. RESULTS: The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

Acceptability and usability of a patient portal for men with prostate cancer in follow-up care.

Background: A stratified approach to cancer follow-up care, including remote monitoring and supported self-management for suitable patients, is increasingly recommended. Patient portals can facilitate such an approach, allowing access to results and information. There is limited understanding of the use of portals within this context. Aim: This paper reports the acceptability and usability of a patient portal developed to facilitate a remote monitoring and supported self-management follow-up care programme for men with prostate cancer. Methods: A mixed methods evaluation, including analysis of service utilisation data, a survey of users' experiences and satisfaction, and telephone interviews of non-users' views and experiences. Results: Sixty percent of eligible patients registered to use the portal. Of these, 37% logged in at least once over a 6-month period and 52% over 12 months. Satisfaction among these users was reasonably high. Use of the portal in general was rated as very easy or easy by over 70% of respondents, and the majority felt the portal had helped them manage their condition in various ways. However, a large minority (40%) did not use the portal, with reasons for non-use including lack of access to computing facilities and lack of computer skills. Those who were older were less likely to register to use the portal. Conclusions: A large proportion of participants found the patient portal acceptable and easy to use. Reasons for non-use should be addressed in order to maximise system efficiencies and minimise inequalities in care, and the needs of specific groups should be taken into account.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

BACKGROUND: Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management. METHODS: This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients. CONCLUSION: The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: protocol for an evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme.

BACKGROUND: As more men survive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, alternative models of follow-up care that address men's enduring unmet needs and are economical to deliver are needed. This paper describes the protocol for an ongoing evaluation of a nurse-led supported self-management and remote surveillance programme implemented within the secondary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: The evaluation is taking place within a real clinical setting, comparing the outcomes of men enrolled in the Programme with the outcomes of a pre-service change cohort of men, using a repeated measures design. Men are followed up at four and 8 months post recruitment on a number of outcomes, including quality of life, unmet need, psychological wellbeing and activation for self-management. An embedded health economic analysis and qualitative evaluation of implementation processes are being undertaken. DISCUSSION: The evaluation will provide important information regarding the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and implementation of an integrated supported self-management follow-up care pathway within secondary care.