Search

Objective: The CombiConsultation is an innovative concise clinical pharmacy service by the community pharmacist for patients with a chronic condition. We aimed to identify relevant factors influencing the implementation of the CombiConsultation in Dutch clinical practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and a questionnaire. Content analysis topics within TDF domains were derived from the interview data and were related to the COM-B-model (capability–opportunity–motivation–Behaviour). The relevance of the resulting topics was explored using a questionnaire with 19 statements administered to all 27 pharmacists who performed CombiConsultations. Key findings: Eighteen topics emerged from the interviews. The questionnaire was completed by 23 of the 27 pharmacists. In the domain 'capability', a small number of participants indicated that they need more expertise in pharmacotherapy (13%) and training in consultation skills (35%). In the domain 'opportunity', all participants indicated that an existing good collaboration with the general practitioner/practice nurse and access to all relevant medical data were necessary to implement the CombiConsultation. In terms of motivation, job satisfaction was most important to all participants, followed by adequate reimbursement (83%) and improving collaboration with other healthcare providers and the relationship with patients (78%). Conclusions: Capability, opportunity, and motivation were all considered relevant for the implementation of the CombiConsultation. There were crucial factors on the level of the individual pharmacist, on the level of the local collaboration and organization, and on the health system level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMore than 17 million people worldwide, including 360,000 people in the United Kingdom, were diagnosed with cancer in 2018. Cancer prognosis and disease burden are highly dependent on the disease stage at diagnosis. Most people diagnosed with cancer first present in primary care settings, where improved assessment of the (often vague) presenting symptoms of cancer could lead to earlier detection and improved outcomes for patients. There is accumulating evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) can assist clinicians in making better clinical decisions in some areas of health care. ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review AI techniques that may facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer and could be applied to primary care electronic health record (EHR) data. The quality of the evidence, the phase of development the AI techniques have reached, the gaps that exist in the evidence, and the potential for use in primary care were evaluated. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases from January 01, 2000, to June 11, 2019, and included all studies providing evidence for the accuracy or effectiveness of applying AI techniques for the early detection of cancer, which may be applicable to primary care EHRs. We included all study designs in all settings and languages. These searches were extended through a scoping review of AI-based commercial technologies. The main outcomes assessed were measures of diagnostic accuracy for cancer. ResultsWe identified 10,456 studies; 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing the data of 3,862,910 patients. A total of 13 studies described the initial development and testing of AI algorithms, and 3 studies described the validation of an AI algorithm in independent data sets. One study was based on prospectively collected data; only 3 studies were based on primary care data. We found no data on implementation barriers or cost-effectiveness. Risk of bias assessment highlighted a wide range of study quality. The additional scoping review of commercial AI technologies identified 21 technologies, only 1 meeting our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the heterogeneity of AI modalities, data set characteristics, and outcome measures. ConclusionsAI techniques have been applied to EHR-type data to facilitate early diagnosis of cancer, but their use in primary care settings is still at an early stage of maturity. Further evidence is needed on their performance using primary care data, implementation barriers, and cost-effectiveness before widespread adoption into routine primary care clinical practice can be recommended.

PURPOSE An optimal diagnostic process in primary care is pivotal for reducing cancer-related disease burden. This study aims to explore reasons for long times to referral for Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in primary care. METHODS A retrospective cohort study of anonymized free-text primary care records from the Julius General Practitioners' Network database, linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with a confirmed CRC diagnosis from 2007 through 2011 that symptomatically presented in primary care were included. Median time and interquartile ranges from presentation in primary care to referral were calculated for multiple patient and presentation characteristics. Associations of these characteristics with long time to referral (75th percentile was [greater than or equal to]59 days) were examined with log-binomial regression analyses. Routes to referral of patients with the longest times to referral were explored using thematic free-text analyses (90th percentile at [greater than or equal to]219 days). RESULTS Among the 309 people with CRC, patients who were female, did not have a registered family history, had a history of malignancy, lacked alarm symptoms at presentation, or had hemorrhoids at physical examination were at risk for longer time to referral in univariable analyses (longer median durations and/ or univariable association with the 75th percentile). Only presentation without alarm symptoms showed a statistically significant association with long duration (75th percentile) in multivariable analysis (relative risk = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6). Thematic exploration of the diagnostic routes to referral of patients with the longest durations (90th percentile) showed 2 dominating themes: 'alternative working diagnosis' and 'suboptimal diagnostic strategies,' and included the sub-themes 'omitting to reconsider an initial diagnosis' and 'lacking follow-up.' CONCLUSIONS Long time to referral for CRC in primary care is mainly related to low cancer suspicion. There is potential for reducing the longest times to referral for patients with CRC in primary care, with earlier reconsideration of the initial hypothesis and implementation of strict follow-up consultations. Key words: colorectal cancer; delayed diagnosis; early diagnosis; general practice; primary health care, INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe, with approximately 450,000 new patients with CRC and 215,000 [...]

Objective: Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors and leads to decreased quality of life and increased healthcare costs. We assessed the effectiveness of a guided online primary care intervention for FCR, compared to waiting list. Methods: In this RCT, participants were recruited online and randomised 1:1. All adults who finished successful curative cancer treatment between 3 months and 10 years ago, wanted support for FCR, and had sufficient Dutch skills were eligible. The intervention consisted of a 10‐week online programme and three to five video calling sessions with a trained mental health worker. After 6 months, the control group received the same intervention. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups in the change in FCR severity from baseline (T0) to 6 months (T2), measured online with the short form of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory. Results: One hundred and seventy‐three participants were enroled and randomised to the intervention (n = 86) or control group (n = 87). FCR severity dropped 2.1 points more in the intervention group than in the control group (2.7 points (SD = 3.9) versus 0.6 points (SD = 3.6), t(154) = 3.4, p = 0.0007). General mental well‐being also improved significantly in the intervention group and remained stable in the control group. These improvements remained at 10 months follow up. Conclusions: This easily accessible and relatively inexpensive intervention effectively reduces FCR and has potential to replace or precede existing more intensive psychological treatments, improving patients' access to care. Trial registration: The trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on 25‐02‐2019 with number NL7573. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To describe general practitioners (GPs) experiences with the impact COVID‐19 on the duration of cancer detection. Methods: Cross‐sectional survey study among Dutch GPs. Results: Fifty‐eight GPs participated. During the first wave, COVID‐19‐related delays were experienced by 88%, 52%, and 67% of GPs in the contact‐seeking, primary care, and referral phases, respectively. GPs reported delays due to telehealth consultations, longer waiting times and patient's concerns of COVID infections and overburdening GPs. Conclusions: The majority of GPs experienced delays in cancer diagnostic processes during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which was most prominent in the timeliness in which patients sought GP care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted health care. We studied the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the referral and diagnosis of cancer patients, thereby aiming to help prevent the delay of cancer diagnosis in future pandemics. We found that during the COVID-19 outbreak, the time between presentation and referral in primary care for patients with colorectal and lung cancer was substantially increased. This was also seen for patients who presented with alarm symptoms. This shows that, in future pandemics, targeted GP support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1–29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6–230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3–47) to 41 days (IQR 7–102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2–7) to 6 days (IQR 3–9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9–52), 18 (IQR 7–40), and 9 (IQR 3–44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The coronavirus pandemic profoundly affected how patients access health care services, as many individuals attempted to minimise risks of infectious contact and reduce burdens on health systems. This study aims to explore the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care. It utilises routine clinical data for 1.23 million people in the Netherlands, comparing the first year of the pandemic to the two years prior. These data identify a 34% reduction in the incidence of cancer-related symptoms during the first wave (March to June 2020), with overall incidence returning to pre-corona levels after this period. In the first wave, the incidence of many symptoms was substantially reduced: breast lump (−17%), haematuria (−15%), abdominal mass (−21%), tiredness (−45%), lymphadenopathy (−25%), and naevus (−37%). In the second wave (October 2020 to February 2021), the incidence of breast lump and rectal bleeding was increased (both +14%), and tiredness was decreased (−20%), with the majority of other symptoms being similar to pre-COVID levels. These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. Introduction: In the Netherlands, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic saw shifts in primary health service provision away from physical consultations, cancer-screening programs were temporarily halted, and government messaging focused on remaining at home. In March and April 2020, weekly cancer diagnoses decreased to 73% of their pre-COVID levels, and 39% for skin cancer. This study aims to explore the effect of the COVID pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care in The Netherlands. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using routine clinical primary care data. Monthly incidences of patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in five clinical databases in The Netherlands were analysed from March 2018 to February 2021. Results: Data demonstrated reductions in the incidence of cancer-related symptom presentations to primary care during the first COVID wave (March-June 2020) of −34% (95% CI: −43 to −23%) for all symptoms combined. In the second wave (October 2020–February 2021) there was no change in incidence observed (−8%, 95% CI −20% to 6%). Alarm-symptoms demonstrated decreases in incidence in the first wave with subsequent incidences that continued to rise in the second wave, such as: first wave: breast lump −17% (95% CI: −27 to −6%) and haematuria −15% (95% CI −24% to −6%); and second wave: rectal bleeding +14% (95% CI: 0 to 30%) and breast lump +14% (95% CI: 2 to 27%). Presentations of common non-alarm symptom such as tiredness and naevus demonstrated decreased in-cidences in the first wave of 45% (95% CI: −55% to −33%) and 37% (95% CI −47% to −25%). In the second wave, tiredness incidence was reduced by 20% (95% CI: −33% to −3%). Subgroup analy-sis did not demonstrate difference in incidence according to sex, age groups, comorbidity status, or previous history of cancer. Conclusions: These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. For those patients who had underlying cancer, this may have had impacted the cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]