Search

Introduction: Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow‐up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two‐way information sharing and clear follow‐up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted pre‐ and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. Results: Thirty‐two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow‐up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer‐specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low‐risk, stable patients around 2–3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow‐up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. Conclusion: Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow‐up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many cancer care services (CCS) provide pragmatic models of emergent care for their patients as part of 'business as usual' without understanding the scope of this work. We aimed to describe an Australian CCS-led model of emergent care and quantify and profile emergent care provided over a 6-month period to understand scope and demand. Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed at a large tertiary hospital on the eastern coast of Australia in 2016. The study explored emergent care provided during business hour and after-hours, including telephone advice, unplanned care and unplanned admissions. Data were collected via electronic hospital records and clinical nurses regarding who accessed care, why care was accessed, what care was provided and how the episode of care ended. Results: Between March and September 2016, 1412 episodes of unplanned care were provided in the CCS-led model of care, including 307 episodes of telephone advice (237 patients; min max 1–4 episodes per patient; 825 episodes of unplanned care (484 patients; min max 1–9 episodes per patient) and 280 unplanned admissions (233 patients; min max 1–6 episodes per patient). During the same time, an additional 459 unplanned admissions (361 patients) occurred via the emergency department (ED), of which 125 (27.2%) occurred during business hours which could have been managed by the CCS. Most people who received care experienced issues associated with disease or treatment and had received systemic anticancer therapy in the past 30 days. Conclusions: The data demonstrate that a significant volume of emergent care was provided within the CCS over the study period, in addition to planned cancer treatment. Due to the ever-increasing demands on EDs and the significant need for emergent care for people with cancer, there is need for CCS-led models of care to provide specialist emergent care specifically for people who are receiving systemic anticancer therapy. Such models must be adequately resourced to meet the needs of patients, carers and healthcare professionals. What is known about the topic?: There is increasing focus on innovative models of emergent care for people with cancer in the out-patient setting to relieve pressure on EDs and improve patient experiences. Limited literature has focused on such models in the Australian context. What does this paper add?: This paper describes, quantifies and profiles care provided in a pragmatic CCS-led model of emergent care in a large tertiary hospital in Australia over 6 months. The data demonstrate significant demand for emergent care within business hours, as well as out of hours, predominantly for people undergoing systemic anticancer therapy. What are the implications for practitioners?: The findings of this study highlight the need for CCS to develop pragmatic models of emergent care. Appropriate resources, infrastructure, policies and procedures are required to adequate meet the needs of patients and carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why. Methods: The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks. Results: Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improving care coordination is a key priority for health services. The aims of this study were to identify patient- and health service-related predictors of poorly coordinated care and to explore patient preferences to assist care coordination.Methods: Patients with incident colorectal cancer, identified from a state-wide cancer registry, completed a self-report questionnaire 6 to 8 months after their diagnosis. Care coordination was assessed with the Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire for Patients. Multiple linear regression models were used to predict factors associated with a poor experience with cancer care coordination.Results: Among 560 patients (56% response rate), care coordination experiences were normally distributed (mean score, 76.1; standard deviation, 10.9). Patients who had 3 or more comorbid conditions (β, -4.56; standard error [SE], 1.46; P = .006), little or no understanding of the health system (β, -4.34; SE, 0.94; P < .001), and no regular general practitioner (GP; β, -4.09; SE, 2.07; P = .049) experienced poorer care coordination. At the health service level, patients who did not receive a written pretreatment plan (β, -4.15; SE, 0.95; P < .001) or did not see a cancer care coordinator (β, -3.29; SE, 1.03; P = .001) had lower scores. The most preferred resources included information packs (92%), written care plans (88%), and improved access to their own personal medical records (electronic, 86; paper, 84%), with most patients preferring a shared GP and surgeon care model.Conclusions: There was wide variation in experiences across the state. The factors associated with lower scores provide a focus for targeted strategies for improving patients' experience with colorectal cancer care coordination. Cancer 2017;123:319-326. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper reports on a qualitative research project designed to expose the presently unrecognised minutiae of community nurses’ work with cancer patients at home, and to identify the ways in which these, combined to form comprehensive care episodes, contribute to physical and psychosocial well-being. The project was conducted in two locations in New South Wales, Australia, one metropolitan and one rural. The research model focused on particular nurse–patient encounters, and involved pre- and post-encounter interviews with nurses, post-encounter interviews with patients and carers, and observation of the encounters themselves. Participants included generalist community nurses, cancer patients being cared for at home, and their primary carers where appropriate. This research demonstrates that regular contact with generalist community nurses is associated with a strong sense of security about the immediate situation for home-based cancer patients and their primary carers. This sense of security is a significant component of patient and carer physical and psychosocial well-being, and may have implications for health services utilisation. In the present paper, the authors outline the factors underpinning this sense of security, and argue that these findings contribute important new knowledge that is vital for contemporary debates about role responsibilities and continuity of care for cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A cancer diagnosis during adolescence or young adulthood presents unique medical and psychosocial challenges which must be addressed in the provision of quality, comprehensive cancer care. Tailoring services to the needs of this population requires careful work to identify, monitor and evaluate areas of care; however, published work in this area to guide service priorities is limited. This paper presents work done by the Australian Youth Cancer Services to operationalise and deliver quality care to adolescents and young adults with cancer, focusing on nationally coordinated service improvement initiatives and activity data collection in four areas that are of particular concern to young people diagnosed with cancer: clinical trial enrolment, oncofertility, psychosocial care and survivorship. This account may be instructive for health services seeking to improve the delivery and monitoring of cancer care provided to adolescents and young adults. Adolescents and young adults (aged 15–25 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial experiences and care needs, distinct from those of paediatric and older adult patients. Since 2011, the Australian Youth Cancer Services have provided developmentally appropriate, multidisciplinary and comprehensive care to these young patients, facilitated by national service coordination and activity data collection and monitoring. This paper reports on how the Youth Cancer Services have conceptualised and delivered quality youth cancer care in four priority areas: clinical trial participation, oncofertility, psychosocial care and survivorship. National activity data collected by the Youth Cancer Services between 2016–17 and 2019–20 are used to illustrate how service monitoring processes have facilitated improvements in coordination and accountability across multiple indicators of quality youth cancer care, including clinical trial participation, access to fertility information and preservation, psychosocial screening and care and the transition from active treatment to survivorship. Accounts of both service delivery and monitoring and evaluation processes within the Australian Youth Cancer Services provide an exemplar of how coordinated initiatives may be employed to deliver, monitor and improve quality cancer care for adolescents and young adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Disparities in outcomes are experienced between people who live in rural and remote areas and those who live in larger cities. This paper explores the ability to deliver specialist cancer care through the use of telehealth models. Design Review of telehealth models for cancer care. Setting, participants and intervention Cancer patients in rural, remote and Indigenous communities who receive their care through telehealth. Outcome measures and results Telehealth models seem to be applicable to all fields of oncology and all health professionals. These models not only facilitate the provision of specialist services closer to home in an acceptable, safe and cost-effective manner, but also help expand the rural scope of practice and enhance service capabilities at rural centres. Conclusion New models of telehealth are another avenue to help further decrease the disparity of access and survival outcomes between rural and urban patients. Implementation of these models requires health system wide approach for development key performance indicators and allocation of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper reflects on the recent growth of cancer research being conducted through some of Australia's rural centres. It encompasses work being done across the fields of clinical, translational and health services research. Design This is a collaborative piece with contributions from rural health researchers, clinical and cancer services staff from several different regions. Conclusion The past decade has seen an expansion in cancer research in rural and regional Australia driven in part by the recognition that cancer patients in remote areas experience poorer outcomes than their metropolitan counterparts. This work has led to the development of more effective cancer networks and new models of care designed to meet the particular needs of the rural cancer patient. It is hoped that the growth of cancer research in regional centres will, in time, reduce the disparity between rural and urban communities and improve outcomes for cancer patients across both populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim This paper describes the research protocol for a study exploring if and how clinical supervision facilitates change in practice relating to psychosocial aspects of care for Health Professionals, who have been trained to deliver a psychosocial intervention to adults with cancer. Background There is a recognized need to implement care that is in line with clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer. Clinical supervision is recommended as a means to support Health Professionals in providing the recommended psychosocial care. Design A qualitative design embedded within an experimental, stepped wedge randomized control trial. Methods The study will use discourse analysis to analyse audio-recorded data collected in clinical supervision sessions that are being delivered as one element of a large randomized control trial. The sessions will be attended primarily by nurses, but including physiotherapists, radiation therapists, occupational therapists. The Health Professionals are participants in a randomized control trial designed to reduce anxiety and depression of distressed adults with cancer. The sessions will be facilitated by psychiatrists experienced in psycho-oncology and the provision of clinical supervision. Discussion The proposed research is designed specifically to facilitate exploration of the mechanisms by which clinical supervision enables Health Professionals to deliver a brief, tailored psychosocial intervention in the context of their everyday practice. This is the first study to use discourse analysis embedded within an experimental randomized control trial to explore the mechanisms of change generated within clinical supervision by analysing the discourse within the clinical supervision sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Migrants with cancer struggle to communicate with their health care team. This study aimed to identify health-care related unmet needs and communication issues for migrants who develop cancer and factors associated with these challenges. In this paper, the findings related to communication issues are presented. Patients and methods: Seventy-three cancer patients diagnosed within the previous 3 years and 18 carers, who had migrated to Australia and spoke the designated languages, participated in focus groups or structured interviews. Participants were recruited from ethnic community support organisations, support groups and Oncology clinics within three metropolitan hospitals in two states of Australia. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted in participants' own language or English as preferred, audio-taped, transcribed and translated into English and analysed using qualitative methods. Results: Four themes emerged: (1) cultural isolation, alienation and identification; (2) language and communication difficulties; (3) interpreter issues; and (4) advice for health professionals. Participants, especially those less acculturated, described feeling alone and misunderstood, failing to comprehend medical instructions, being unable to communicate questions and concerns and a lack of consistency in interpreters and interpretation. Conclusions: Migrants with cancer experience additional challenges to those of native-born patients. Participants provided cogent advice regarding optimal communication with people from their culture. There is clearly a need to develop strategies to increase the cultural competence of care to people from different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]