Specialist versus primary care prostate cancer follow-up:A process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care. Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266)

Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up:Results from the population-based PROFILES registry

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important

Leerboek oncologie: De zorg voor patiënten met kanker in de huisartsenpraktijk

De huisarts heeft een belangrijke rol voor de patiënt en zijn familie bij de zorg rondom kanker. In tegenstelling tot wat veel wordt gedacht is die rol niet beperkt tot de diagnostiek van kanker en de terminale fase. Ook bij preventie van kanker, tijdens de behandeling van en follow-up periode na kanker is de huisarts betrokken bij de zorg voor de patiënten en hun naasten. In dit hoofdstuk wordt de rol van de huisarts in alle fasen beschreven. Omdat de terminale zorg vaak volledig in handen van de huisarts is, wordt er in dit hoofdstuk extra aandacht besteed aan palliatieve zorg, de stervensfase, palliatieve sedatie en euthanasie

Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire

PURPOSE We aimed to assess participant-reported factors associated with non–follow-up with colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS In May 2019, we distributed a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire (n = 4,009) to participants in the Dutch CRC screening program who received a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Among respondents who reported no colonoscopy, we assessed the presence of a contraindication, and those without were compared with those who reported colonoscopy by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Of 2,225 respondents (56% response rate), 730 (33%) reported no colonos-copy. A contraindication was reported by 55% (n = 404). Decisional difficulties (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18-0.47), lacking the opportunity to discuss the FIT outcome (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72), and a low estimated risk of CRC (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.76) were negatively associated with follow-up. Knowledge items negatively associated with follow-up included having an alternative explanation for the positive FIT (OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.21-0.43), having trust in the ability to self-detect CRC (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), and thinking that polyp removal is ineffective (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.82). The belief that the family physician would support colonoscopy showed the strongest positive association with follow-up (OR = 2.84; 95% CI, 2.01-4.02) CONCLUSIONS Because decisional difficulties and certain convictions regarding CRC and screening are associated with non–follow-up, personalized screening counseling might be an intervention worth exploring as a means of improving follow-up in the Dutch CRC screening program. Involving family physicians might also prove beneficial

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

Eenduidige richtlijnen voor de eerste en tweede lijn inzake urineweginfecties

The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) practice guideline 'Urinary tract infections' intended for primary health care and the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) practice guideline 'Antimicrobial therapy in complicated urinary tract infections' intended for specialists in secondary care, were reviewed together. - In the NHG guideline the differentiation between 'complicated' and 'uncomplicated' urinary tract infections has been replaced by categorisation into age, sex, risk group and the presence of fever, or invasion of tissues.- If urinary tract infection has been diagnosed, a dip slide test can be used to determine resistance.- The guidelines recommend the most narrow-spectrum antibiotic to reduce further increase in antimicrobial resistance.- A chapter about women with recurrent urinary tract infections has been added to the SWAB guideline. Amongst other things, the chapter provides information on the prescription of prophylactic lactobacillus in secondary car

Kansrijke start voor kind en ouder

The health of women during the periconception period and pregnancy is important for a healthy start of the child. All care providers can make a major contribution to this. In this learning article we provide answers to a number of questions that have been collected from the professional field about preconception care and care for vulnerable pregnant women. Our aim is to inform general practitioners and specialists who assist women with a (possible) desire to have children about proactive care in pregnancy, childbirth and child care. Included are concrete actions of the general practitioner when healthy women wish to become pregnant, which medical history and other characteristics of a pregnant woman negatively affects the health of her (unborn) child, and which signals in a first pregnancy predispose for problems after and in a subsequent pregnancy and what role can the GP play in this. Furthermore, we discuss signs of vulnerability in the consulting room, how transmural risk selection can be applied and we provide an overview of interventions applicable in primary care or where to refer to

Stop smoking advice by practice assistants after routine cervical screening in general practice: A qualitative exploration of potential barriers and enablers

BACKGROUND: Cervical screening could be an appropriate routine moment to provide female smokers with tailored stop smoking advice. In Dutch general practice, cervical smears are performed by practice assistants. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed in preparation for a randomised trial to identify potential barriers and enablers for a brief stop smoking strategy performed by trained practice assistants after routine cervical screening. METHODS: Between December 2016 and March 2017 three focus group meetings were held with ten practice assistants, three nurses, and six general practitioners to explore their views and expectations towards the proposed approach. We analysed data using thematic analysis. Identified factors are presented within the framework of the Social-Ecological Model. RESULTS: Potential barriers and enablers were identified at individual, interpersonal, and workplace levels. Practice assistants, nurses and GPs did not consider assistants to have a role in stop smoking care. They believed it is feasible to register smoking status but had reservations towards providing advice by assistants, for which knowledge and skills are needed. Practice assistants' own beliefs about smokers and smokers' response to stop smoking advice might influence how assistants and smokers interact. An explanation of why advice is given could help, provided assistants have enough time and experience with the smear. The nurses' availability and general practitioners' view on prevention might affect the delivery of the strategy by the assistant. CONCLUSION: At individual, interpersonal, and workplace levels, several factors could influence the provision of a stop smoking strategy by a practice assistant