Search

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018. Results: Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 ± 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10—IQR 8–10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short- and long-term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short- and long-term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed. Conclusion: In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making.

The increasing number of treatment options for cancer patients creates the opportunity for patients to choose a treatment that best fits their preferences. Patient involvement is key for personalized cancer care and is enabled by shared decision making (SDM). However, in current practice, essential steps for SDM are impeded. To improve SDM, healthcare professionals and patients advocate for an increased role of the general practitioner (GP) after a cancer diagnosis. We investigated patients’ experiences with involvement of the patient and the GP in decision making for cancer treatment. Our research showed that patients’ experiences with patient and GP involvement in decision making do not always match their preferences. In addition, timely involvement of the GP was challenging, as the time between diagnosis and treatment decision was often too short. In addition, patients’ and physicians’ experiences with GP involvement were mainly positive and GP involvement was considered as of added value for reflection on diagnosis and SDM. However, patient and (timely) GP involvement needs improvement. To tailor cancer care to patients' preferences, active exploration of patients’ preferences for patient and GP involvement is needed. Furthermore, adequate collaboration and information exchange between primary and secondary care is necessary to timely involve the GP after a cancer diagnosis.

Purpose Supportive care for cancer patients may benefit from improving treatment decisions and optimal use of the family physicians’ and specialists’ strengths. To improve shared decision-making (SDM) and facilitate continuity of primary care during treatment, a cancer care path including a “time out consultation” (TOC) in primary care before treatment decision, was implemented. This study assesses the uptake of a TOC and the added value for SDM. Methods For patients with metastatic lung or gastro-intestinal cancer, a TOC was introduced in their care path in a southern region of The Netherlands, from April until October 2016. Uptake of a TOC was measured to reflect on facilitation of continuity of primary care. The added value for SDM and overall experiences were evaluated with questionnaires and semi-structured interviews among patients, family physicians, and specialists. Results Of the 40 patients who were offered a TOC, 31 (78%) had a TOC. Almost all patients, family physicians, and specialists expressed that they experienced added value for SDM. This includes a stimulating effect on reflection on choice (expressed by 83% of patients) and improved preparation for treatment decision (75% of patients). Overall added value of a TOC for SDM, only evaluated among family physicians and specialists, was experienced by 71% and 86% of these physicians, respectively. Conclusion and Implications for Cancer Survivors The first experiences with a TOC in primary care before cancer treatment decision suggest that it may help to keep the GP “in the loop” after a cancer diagnosis and that it may contribute to the SDM process, according to patients, family physicians, and specialists.

BackgroundOverprescription of antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children is common, partly due to diagnostic uncertainty, in which case the addition of point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing can be of aid.AimTo assess whether use of POC CRP by the GP reduces antibiotic prescriptions in children with suspected non-serious LRTI.Design & settingAn open, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in daytime general practice and out-of-hours services.MethodChildren between 3 months and 12 years of age with acute cough and fever were included and randomised to either use of POC CRP or usual care. Antibiotic prescription rates were measured and compared between groups using generalising estimating equations.ResultsThere was no statistically significant reduction in antibiotic prescriptions in the GP use of CRP group (30.9% versus 39.4%; odds ratio [OR] 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29 to 1.23). Only the estimated severity of illness was related to antibiotic prescription. Forty-six per cent of children had POC CRP levels ConclusionIt is still uncertain whether POC CRP measurement in children with non-serious respiratory tract infection presenting to general practice can reduce the prescription of antibiotics. Until new research provides further evidence, POC CRP measurement in these children is not recommended.

Due to the ageing population and improving diagnostics and treatments, the number of cancer patients and cancer survivors is increasing. Policymakers, patients and professionals advocate a transfer of (part of) cancer care from the hospital environment to the primary care setting, as this could stimulate personalized and integrated care, increase cost-effectiveness and would better meet the patients’ needs and expectations. The effects of structured active follow-up from primary care after cancer diagnosis have not been studied yet. Therefore the GRIP study aims to assess the effects of structured follow-up after a cancer diagnosis, by a primary care team including a general practitioner (GP) and a home care oncology nurse (HON), on satisfaction and healthcare utilization of patients treated with curative intent. We will conduct a multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands. We plan to include 150 patients who will be treated with curative intent for either breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer, or melanoma. Further inclusion criteria are: age 18 years and older, able to answer questionnaires in Dutch, GP agrees to participate and the possibility to include the patient before the start of treatment. All patients receive care as usual. The intervention arm will receive additional structured follow-up consisting of a GP consultation before onset of treatment to empower the patient for shared decision making with the specialist and a minimum of three contacts with the HON during and after treatment. Primary outcomes are: patient satisfaction with care at the level of specialist, GP and nurse and healthcare utilization. Secondary outcomes include: quality of life, employment status, patient empowerment, shared decision making, mental health and satisfaction with given information. Repeated questionnaires, filled in by the participants, will be assessed within the 1-year study period. This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effects of structured follow-up after a cancer diagnosis by a primary care team including a GP and HON, for patients undergoing treatment with curative intent. Results from the present study may provide the evidence needed to optimally rearrange responsibilities in cancer care delivery and consequently improve cancer care and patient related outcomes. Trial number: NTR5909 .