Cross-sectoral communication by bringing together patient with cancer, general practitioner and oncologist in a video-based consultation: a qualitative study of oncologists' and nurse specialists' perspectives.

Shared care models in the field of cancer aim to improve care coordination, role clarification and patient satisfaction. Cross-sectoral communication is pivotal. Involvement of patients may add to intended mechanisms.A randomised controlled trial 'The Partnership Study' tested the effect of bringing together patient, general practitioner (GP) and oncologist for a consultation conducted by video. PURPOSE: As part of the process evaluation, this study aimed to explore experiences, attitudes and perspectives of the oncological department on sharing patient consultations with GPs using video. METHODS: Four semistructured interviews with five oncologists and four nurse specialists were conducted in February 2020. We focused on the informants' experiences and reflections on the potential of future implementation of the concept 'inviting the GP for a shared consultation by video'. The analyses were based on an inductive, open-minded, hermeneutic phenomenological approach. RESULTS: A total of six overall themes were identified: structuring consultation and communication, perceptions of GP involvement in cancer care, stressors, making a difference, alternative ways of cross-sector communication and needs for redesigning the model. The concept made sense and was deemed useful, but solving the many technical and organisational problems is pivotal. Case-specific tasks and relational issues were targeted by pragmatically rethinking protocol expectations and the usual way of communication and structuring patient encounters. Case selection was discussed as one way of maturing the concept. CONCLUSION: This Danish study adds new insight into understanding different aspects of the process, causal mechanisms as well as the potential of future implementation of video-based tripartite encounters. Beyond solving the technical problems, case selection and organisational issues are important. Acknowledging the disruption of the usual workflow, the introduction of new phases of the usual encounter and the variety of patient-GP relationships to be embraced may help to better understand and comply with barriers and facilitators of communication and sharing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02716168.

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care. METHOD: We used descriptive survey data from patients and doctors in the intervention group based on a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the user perspectives and fidelity of the intervention. RESULTS: Patients expressed that they were able to present their concerns in 95% of the consultations, and believed it was beneficial to have both their doctors present in 84%. The general practitioner and oncologist found that tripartite video consultation would lead to better coordination of care in almost 90% of the consultations. However, the benefits of handling social issues and comorbidity were sparser. Consultations were not accomplished in 11% due to technical problems and sound and video quality were non-satisfactory in 20%. CONCLUSION: Overall, multidisciplinary video consultations between cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist were feasible in daily clinics. Initial barriers to address were technical issues and seamless planning. Patients reported high satisfaction, patient centredness and clarity of roles. General practitioners and oncologists were overall positive regarding role clarification and continuity, although less pronounced than patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clincialtrials.gov , NCT02716168.

Cross-sectoral video consultation in cancer care: GPs' evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared care models present an opportunity for patients to receive the benefits of specialist care combined with the continuity of care provided by a GP. AIM: To test the effects on GP-perceived involvement in cancer care and their satisfaction with this cross-sectoral information after bringing the patient, GP, and oncologist together in a shared video consultation. DESIGN & SETTING: GPs from the Region of Southern Denmark evaluated a randomised controlled trial testing shared video consultations. METHOD: This study describes secondary outcomes based on a 4 months' follow-up survey from GPs participating in The Partnership Project (PSP). Patient perception of coordination of care at 7 months' follow-up was the primary outcome of the PSP. A tripartite video consultation was conducted during cancer treatment to share tasks and roles between health professionals with the patient. RESULTS: The study included 281 patients, and 105 unique GPs returned 124 questionnaires. Video consultations were accomplished in 68% of scheduled cases. The study found an increased odds ratio (OR) of 3.03 for GP satisfaction with the distribution of tasks and roles, and they experienced more involvement in the cancer patients' trajectory. The study found an increased OR of 6.95 for the GP perception of more direct contact and dialogue with the Department of Oncology. There was a decreased OR of 0.88 for the GP to be engaged in handling anxiety and psychological concerns. CONCLUSION: The study showed that involving the GP in one shared consultation increased the odds of the GP being satisfied with the distribution of tasks and roles, and feeling more involved in the cancer patient's trajectory. However, recruitment and response rates from GPs were limiting factors.

Investigating whether shared video-based consultations with patients, oncologists, and GPs can benefit patient-centred cancer care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines have proposed that GPs should have a central role as coordinators of care and support patients with cancer during all stages of treatment, follow-up, and rehabilitation. Multidisciplinary video consultation involving the patient with cancer, the oncologist, and the GP may help to define roles and tasks, and this resulting clarity may enable greater support for patients with cancer. AIM: To explore the consultation structure, content, and task clarification when a GP and an oncologist are attending a video consultation with a patient with cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study took place in the Region of Southern Denmark to investigate multidisciplinary video consultations, based on thematic analysis. METHOD: Recordings of 12 video consultations were analysed using the framework method. A combined deductive and inductive approach was undertaken. The deductive themes were selected based on a consultation guide given to the doctors before the consultations. RESULTS: The study identified 15 themes, which were grouped into the following three categories: the implications of sharing a consultation; consultation structure; and health concerns. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary video-based consultations with a patient and two health professionals succeeded in having a patient-centred communication style. In clarifying tasks between the GP and oncologist to support the patient, work-related issues and professional support for psychosocial challenges were always a task for the GP. Dissemination of this first-line evidence may improve acceptability among medical specialists and help assist GPs in supporting patients with cancer. However, focus on the involvement of relatives should be emphasised.

Moving forward after cancer: successful implementation of a colorectal cancer patient-centered transitions program.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors transitioning between academic comprehensive cancer systems and community general practice settings are vulnerable to discontinuity, inconsistency and variation in care, inappropriate surveillance testing, and a sense of isolation and loss. Though these issues have been well recognized for over a decade and a half in the survivorship, oncologic, and health services literature, there remains a dearth of positive examples of models that have been well received by both the transitioned patient and the providers on either side of the handoff. We herein describe a sustained positive example of a transitions program. This program centers on standardized and personalized survivorship care plans (SCP) to guide follow-up care and recovery. METHODS: Following the province-wide introduction of a transitions program for treated stages II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, a post-implementation survey was mailed to transitioned patients with the primary outcome evaluated the patients' perception of improved continuity of care and the main instrument used the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire. This was compared against a previously published pre-implementation historical control. RESULTS: The data presented comparing pre- and post-implementation patient cohorts reflect significantly improved patient-reported perceptions regarding the enhanced continuity and coordination of their follow-up and survivorship care after the province-wide introduction of a formal transitions process. This SCP intervention has been sustained post implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Using, as a starting-point, a standardized electronically SCP, CancerCare Manitoba has successfully facilitated a jurisdiction-wide implementation of a scalable, reproducible, and adaptable transitions program. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This intervention at the time of transition back to the community has enhanced CRC survivor perception of continuity and coordination of follow-up care.

Improving continuity by bringing the cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist together in a shared video-based consultation - protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening the coordination, continuity and intersectoral cooperation for cancer patients' during cancer treatment is being underlined by international guidelines and research. General practitioners have assumed a growing role in the cancer patient disease trajectory because of their roles as coordinators and the consistent health provider. However, general practitioners are challenged in providing support for cancer patients both during treatment and in the survivorship phase. General practitioners reported barriers are lack of timely and relevant communication from the oncologist and limited knowledge to guidelines, as well as lack of trust from patients. Therefore, the current study will examine whether a shared video-based consultation between the cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist can ease general' challenges and thereby enhance the patient-centeredness for the cancer patients and their perception of intersectoral cooperation and continuity. METHODS: The study is designed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial for patients starting chemotherapy at the Department of Oncology, Lillebaelt Hospital, Denmark who are listed with a general practitioner in the Region of Southern Denmark. We intend to include 278 adults diagnosed with colorectal, breast, lung, gynecologic or prostate cancer. The intervention group will receive the "Partnership intervention" which consists of one or more video-consultations between the cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist. The consultations are estimated to last between 10 and 20 min. The specific aims of the consultation are, summary of the patient trajectory, sharing of knowledge regarding comorbidity, psychosocial resources and needs, physical well-being, medicine, anxiety and depression symptoms, spouses, workability and late complication and side-effects to the cancer treatment. DISCUSSION: Video-based consultation that brings the cancer patient, the general practitioner and the oncologist together in the early phase of treatment may facilitate a sense of partnership that is powerful enough to improve the patient's perception of intersectoral cooperation, continuity of cancer care and health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincialTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02716168 . Date of registration: 03.03.2016.

Peer-assisted debriefing of multisource feedback: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Manitoba Physician Achievement Review (MPAR) is a 360-degree feedback assessment that physicians undergo every 7 years to retain licensure. Deliberate reflection on feedback has been demonstrated to encourage practice change. The MPAR Reflection Exercise (RE), a peer-assisted debriefing tool, was developed whereby the physician selects a peer with whom to review and reflect on feedback, committing to change. This qualitative study explores how physicians who had undergone the MPAR used the RE, what areas of change are identified and committed to, and what they perceived as the role of reflection in the MPAR process. METHODS: The MPAR RE was piloted out to a cohort of MPAR-reviewed physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted on completed exercises (n = 61). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n = 6) who completed the MPAR RE until saturation was reached. RESULTS: Physicians reviewed feedback with a range of peers, including colleagues, staff, and spouses. Many physicians were surprised by feedback, both positive and negative, but interviewees found the RE useful in processing feedback. Areas where physicians committed to change were diverse, covering all CanMEDS roles. Most physicians identified themselves as being successful in implementing change, though time, habit, and structures were cited as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Peer-assisted debriefing can assist reflection of multisource feedback. It is easy to implement, is not resource-intensive, and feedback implies that it is effective at promoting change. Participants, with the aid of peers, identified areas for change, developed approaches for change, and largely thought themselves successful at implementing changes. Areas of change included all seven CanMEDS roles.

Changing Health Professionals' Attitudes and Practice Behaviors Through Interprofessional Continuing Education in Oral-Systemic Health.

Integration of oral-systemic science into clinical care holds promise for improving patient outcomes and presenting opportunities for individuals in various health care professions to learn with, from, and about each other. The aim of this study was to examine whether an interprofessional continuing education program dedicated to oral-systemic health improved participants' attitudes toward interprofessional education and collaboration between dental and non-dental health care professionals and whether it influenced the physicians' practice of screening for debilitating oral diseases. The study took place in 2014 and used a mixed-methods approach, consisting of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) surveys conducted before, immediately after, and six months after the intervention, as well as surveys of self-reported practice behaviors and semi-structured interviews. A total of 231 health care professionals participated in the lectures and roundtable discussions. Of those, 134 responded to the pre-program survey (58% response rate), 110 responded to the post-program survey (48% response rate), and 58 responded to the survey six months after the program (25% response rate). The participants' median total RIPLS score at baseline was 76.5, which increased significantly immediately following the program (81.0) but returned to baseline six months later (76.5). Participants' RIPLS domain scores also increased significantly by profession from before to after the event, with effects returning to baseline after six months. Significantly more physicians reported screening for caries and periodontal disease after the intervention. An overall theme of "learning with, from, and about each other" was drawn from the interviews with 15 participants. The physicians took away a message of "just look in the mouth," while the dental professionals reported feeling valued as members of the health care team. Although reported improvements in oral-systemic health practice immediately after the intervention were encouraging, further research is necessary to understand why collaborative behaviors were not sustained.

Retention in a 10-year cohort of internationally trained family physicians licensed in Manitoba.

INTRODUCTION: International medical graduates (IMGs) seeking licensure in Canada have been recruited to practise in medically underserviced areas, but retention of these physicians remains a concern. This study explored retention of IMG family physicians in Manitoba and its predictors. METHODS: We used data from the University of Manitoba, provincial registries and Manitoba Health. Inclusion criteria were IMGs who completed University of Manitoba IMG training or assessment programs, and their return-of-service. Practice location, certification and licensure status were examined. We used logistic regression to consider the effects of a mentorship program, Manitoba residency at application, IMG program and years since program graduation on retention. RESULTS: A total of 197 IMGs met the inclusion criteria. Most IMGs (63.5%) remained in Manitoba, and 59.2% of this group practised outside of Winnipeg. Of those remaining in Manitoba, most (69.6%) held full provincial licensure and national certification. The regression model was significant (χ24 = 13.94, p = 0.007), explaining 10% of the variance in retention. Two predictors were significant: years since program graduation and Manitoba residency at the time of application. CONCLUSION: Long-term retention of IMG physicians remains a concern. Potential interventions likely to increase retention, such as Manitoba residency at application and a focus on mentorship programs, should be further explored.

INTRODUCTION: Des diplômés de facultés de médecine étrangères (DFME) désireux d'obtenir un permis d'exercice au Canada ont été recrutés pour exercer en régions sous-desservies, mais la fidélisation de ces médecins demeure préoccupante. Cette étude a examiné la fidélisation des médecins de famille DFME au Manitoba et les facteurs permettant de la prédire. METHODS: Nous avons utilisé des données de l'Université du Manitoba, des registres provinciaux et du ministère de la Santé du Manitoba. Pour être inclus dans l'étude, les DFME devaient avoir suivi une formation adaptée à leur situation à l'Université du Manitoba ou avoir participé à un programme d'évaluation à cette même université, et avoir conclu une entente de retour de service. Le lieu de pratique, la certification et le type de permis obtenu ont été relevés. Nous avons utilisé une régression logistique pour tenir compte de l'effet sur la fidélisation des éléments suivants : avoir participé à un programme de mentorat, habiter au Manitoba au moment de demander l'admission au programme, avoir participé à un programme destiné aux DFME et nombre d'années écoulées depuis l'obtention du diplôme associé à ce programme. RESULTS: En tout, 197 DFME répondaient aux critères d'inclusion. La plupart des DFME (63,5 %) sont restés au Manitoba et, de ce groupe, 59,2 % pratiquent à l'extérieur de Winnipeg. Parmi ceux qui sont restés au Manitoba, la plupart (69,6 %) détenaient un permis d'exercice sans restriction et une certification nationale. Le modèle de régression logistique a été significatif (χ24 = 13,94, p = 0,007), ce qui explique la variation de 10 % du taux de fidélisation. Deux facteurs de prédiction ont été significatifs : le nombre d'années écoulées depuis l'obtention du diplôme du programme et le fait d'habiter au Manitoba au moment de postuler. CONCLUSION: La fidélisation à long terme des médecins DFME demeure préoccupante. Il faudrait explorer davantage des interventions axées sur les facteurs susceptibles d'améliorer la fidélisation, notamment le fait que les postulants habitent au Manitoba au moment de présenter leur demande et l'importance à accorder aux programmes de mentorat.

Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: Practical guide to survivorship care for family physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To offer FPs a summary of evidence-based recommendations to guide their follow-up survivorship care of women treated for breast cancer. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE from 2000 to 2016 using the search words breast cancer, survivorship, follow-up care, aftercare, guidelines, and survivorship care plans, with a focus on review of recent guidelines published by national cancer organizations. Evidence ranges from level I to level III. MAIN MESSAGE: Survivorship care involves 4 main tasks: surveillance and screening, management of long-term effects, health promotion, and care coordination. Surveillance for recurrence involves only annual mammography, and screening for other cancers should be done according to population guidelines. Management of the long-term effects of cancer and its treatment addresses common issues of pain, fatigue, lymphedema, distress, and medication side effects, as well as longer-term concerns for cardiac and bone health. Health promotion emphasizes the benefits of active lifestyle change in cancer survivors, with an emphasis on physical activity. Survivorship care is enhanced by the involvement of various health professionals and services, and FPs play an important role in care coordination. CONCLUSION: Family physicians are increasingly the main providers of follow-up care after breast cancer treatment. Breast cancer should be viewed as a chronic medical condition even in women who remain disease free, and patients benefit from the approach afforded other chronic conditions in primary care.

Family physician access to and wait times for cancer diagnostic investigations: Regional differences among 3 provinces.

OBJECTIVE: To examine provincial and regional differences in FPs' direct access to cancer diagnostic investigations and advice from other specialists regarding investigations and referrals, and to explore FPs' perceptions about wait times for diagnostic investigations and receipt of results. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, online survey. SETTING: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of FPs from participating provinces. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct FP access to various diagnostic investigations and advice from other specialists regarding investigations and referrals; FPs' perceptions about wait times for diagnostic investigations ordered directly; and FPs' perceptions about wait times for results. RESULTS: A total of 1054 surveys were completed by FPs from British Columbia (n = 229), Manitoba (n = 228), and Ontario (n = 597). Distance from a cancer centre was not significantly associated with direct access to or wait times for diagnostic investigations for most of the investigations studied; however, provincial differences were observed. Family physicians in Manitoba and British Columbia were 30% to 45% less likely to report having direct access to endoscopy and some imaging investigations compared with FPs in Ontario. Family physicians in Manitoba and British Columbia were also at increased odds of waiting longer than 12 weeks for endoscopy investigations and longer than 4 weeks for imaging investigations compared with FPs in Ontario. Most FPs reported wait times of less than 2 weeks for imaging results; however, the proportion of FPs who waited longer than 2 weeks for colonoscopy results ranged from 15% in Ontario to 96% in British Columbia. CONCLUSION: Given the disparities observed among provinces, there is an opportunity for provinces to learn from one another to improve direct access to and shorten wait times for diagnostic investigations. This in turn has the potential to shorten the primary care interval for cancer diagnostic assessment.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey.

OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences. DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate. RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.

Development of a survey instrument to investigate the primary care factors related to differences in cancer diagnosis between international jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates following a diagnosis of cancer vary between countries. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), a collaboration between six countries with primary care led health services, was set up in 2009 to investigate the causes of these differences. Module 3 of this collaboration hypothesised that an association exists between the readiness of primary care physicians (PCP) to investigate for cancer - the 'threshold' risk level at which they investigate or refer to a specialist for consideration of possible cancer - and survival for that cancer (lung, colorectal and ovarian). We describe the development of an international survey instrument to test this hypothesis. METHODS: The work was led by an academic steering group in England. They agreed that an online survey was the most pragmatic way of identifying differences between the jurisdictions. Research questions were identified through clinical experience and expert knowledge of the relevant literature.A survey comprising a set of direct questions and five clinical scenarios was developed to investigate the hypothesis. The survey content was discussed and refined concurrently and repeatedly with international partners. The survey was validated using an iterative process in England. Following validation the survey was adapted to be relevant to the health systems operating in other jurisdictions and translated into Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, and into Canadian and Australian English. RESULTS: This work has produced a survey with face, content and cross cultural validity that will be circulated in all six countries. It could also form a benchmark for similar surveys in countries with similar health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: The vignettes could also be used as educational resources. This study is likely to impact on healthcare policy and practice in participating countries.

Family physicians who have focused practices in oncology: results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographic characteristics, practice profile, and current work life of general practitioners in oncology (GPOs) for the first time. DESIGN: National Web survey performed in March 2011. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the national GPO organization. Respondents were asked to forward the survey to non-member colleagues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Profile of work as GPOs and in other medical roles, training received, demographic characteristics, and professional satisfaction. RESULTS: The response rate was 73.3% for members of the Canadian Association of General Practitioners in Oncology; overall, 120 surveys were completed. Respondents worked in similar proportions in small and larger communities. About 60% of them had participated in formal training programs. Most respondents worked part-time as GPOs and also worked in other medical roles, particularly palliative care, primary care practice, teaching, and hospital work. More GPOs from cities with populations of greater than 100 000 worked solely as GPOs than those from smaller communities (P = .0057). General practitioners in oncology played a variety of roles in the cancer care system, particularly in systemic therapy, palliative care, inpatient care, and teaching. As a group, more than half of respondents were involved in the care of each of the 11 common cancer types. Overall, 87.8% of respondents worked in outpatient care, 59.1% provided inpatient care, and 33.0% provided on-call services; 92.8% were satisfied with their work as GPOs. CONCLUSION: General practitioners in oncology are involved in all cancer care settings and usually combine this work with other roles, particularly with palliative care in rural Canada. Training is inconsistent but initiatives are under way to address this. Job satisfaction is better than that of Canadian FPs in general. As generalists, FPs bring a valuable skill set to their work as GPOs in the cancer care system.

Concordance with ASCO guidelines for surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment: a population-based analysis.

PURPOSE: Intensive surveillance after curative treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with improved overall survival. This study examined concordance with the 2005 ASCO surveillance guidelines at the population level. METHODS: A cohort of 250 patients diagnosed with stage II or III CRC in 2004 and alive 42 months after diagnosis was identified from health administrative data in Manitoba, Canada. Colonoscopy, liver imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing were assessed over 3 years. Guidelines were met if patients had at least one colonoscopy in 3 years and at least one liver imaging test and three CEA tests annually. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the effect of patient and physician characteristics and disease and treatment factors on guideline concordance. RESULTS: Guidelines for colonoscopy, liver imaging, and CEA were met by 80.4%, 47.2%, and 22% of patients, respectively. Guideline concordance for colonoscopy was predicted by annual contact with a surgeon, higher income, and the diagnosis of colon (rather than rectal) cancer. Adherence was lower in those older than 70 years and with higher comorbidity. For liver imaging, significant predictors were annual contact with an oncologist, receipt of chemotherapy, and diagnosis of colon cancer. Concordance with CEA guidelines was higher with annual contact with an oncologist and high levels of family physician contact, and lower in urban residents, in those older than 70, and in those with stage II disease. CONCLUSION: Completion of recommended liver imaging and CEA testing fall well below guidelines in Manitoba, whereas colonoscopy is better provided. Addressing this gap should improve outcomes for CRC survivors.

Continuity of care of colorectal cancer survivors at the end of treatment: the oncology-primary care interface.

PURPOSE: This study examines at a population level how colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors evaluate the continuity and quality of their follow-up care after treatment, particularly for those in the care of a primary care provider (PCP). METHODS: A survey was mailed in 2010 to all individuals in Manitoba, Canada diagnosed in 2008/2009 with stage II and III CRC. Respondents were asked to identify the main provider(s) of their follow-up care. Those indicating a PCP completed the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PCCQ), which assesses continuity of care upon discharge from hospital to community. Quality of life (QOL) on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Colorectal (FACT-C) and the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale was collected as well as demographic information. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were utilized. RESULTS: The response rate was 246/360 or 68.3 %. Most participants were Caucasian with a mean age of 70 and 18 months from diagnosis. A single "main provider" of follow-up care was named by 47 %, most frequently a FP or oncologist, but a majority (53 %) indicated multiple providers. Twenty-four combinations of providers were described. The 106 respondents (43.1 %) who named a PCP as a main provider completed the PCCQ and reported high scores on its five subscales. In multivariate analysis, lower FACT-C QOL scores (OR 2.72, CI 1.12-6.57) and male gender (OR 2.82, CI 1.11-7.18) predicted poorer evaluations of continuity of care. Concern was highest regarding sexual function, body image, fatigue, impact on work and recreation, and bowel control, and in those who were younger or with rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The organization of CRC follow-up care between providers is complex and variable, but patients followed by PCPs evaluate their transitions of care after treatment favorably. Specific clinical issues and higher risk groups are identified and may benefit from specific attention from all providers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Most CRC survivors are satisfied when their primary care provider becomes responsible for follow-up care. However, this is less true for those who are having more challenges in recovery. These survivors should ensure that information transfer and support services are identified that will smooth this transition.

Fecal occult blood testing instructions and impact on patient adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Although the physician's role with patients is crucial in encouraging FOBT screening, the nature and content of physician-patient discussions about FOBT screening is unclear. As part of a larger study, this paper reports on our analyses of physician beliefs about fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and strategies they employed to enhance patient adherence. The second aim of this paper is to report on the perceptions of individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in regard to their awareness of the FOBT and their responses to physician recommendations about FOBT screening. METHODS: The larger study was conducted in urban and rural Manitoba, Canada between 2008 and 2010. We used a qualitative design and conducted semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with 15 physicians and 27 individuals at average risk for CRC. We included data from 11 family members or friends on their perspectives of FOBT instructions as individuals who were also at average risk for CRC and had their own experiences with CRC screening recommendations. RESULTS: Despite widespread knowledge of The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care CRC screening guidelines, physician attitudes, behaviors, and instructions were not uniform in promoting patient adherence to FOBT screening. Individuals at average-risk for CRC identified that FOBT instructions were confusing and burdensome, which in turn served as a barrier in their adherence to FOBT screening. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in FOBT instruction counseling in relation to the recommended age of individuals at average risk for CRC, as well as adequate patient preparation affected patient adherence. We recommend uniform or standardized instructions and counseling by health care providers who administer the FOBT kit to patients to promote adherence to recommended CRC screening.

What is the role of family in promoting faecal occult blood test screening? Exploring physician, average-risk individual, and family perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Although the number of Canadians being screened for colon cancer is rising, only 40% of Canadians aged 50 years or older reported they had engaged in faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening as recommended. The notion of 'partnerships' that is inclusive of physicians, individuals at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and influential family members is receiving more attention in primary health care literature and policy on promoting health maintenance behaviours. To the best of our knowledge there are no studies that have taken a tripartite approach in describing perspectives of these three key stakeholders on the role of family in promoting adherence to FOBT. The aim of this study was to address the gap in understanding the perspectives of primary care physicians, individuals at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and family on family role in promoting adherence to FOBT screening. METHOD: We employed a qualitative design and conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 physicians, 27 patients at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and 19 family members or friends from urban and rural Manitoba, Canada between October 2008 and March 2010. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis and constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: While physicians described a clear role for family in managing chronic disease or dealing with acute or serious illness, they identified barriers in working with family to promote FOBT screening: lack of time, privacy and confidentiality concerns, and family dynamics. Conversely, patients and family described instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal roles that family play in promoting FOBT outside medical encounters. CONCLUSION: Adherence to colorectal cancer screening is based on supportive 'patient-physician' dialogue that is separate from assistive 'patient-family member' relations. Further research is required to explore social support mechanisms involving family members outside medical encounters that hold promise in boosting self-efficacy, overcoming barriers, and gaining positive reinforcement for individuals at average-risk when making the decision to engage in FOBT.