Search

Background: In 2020, 19.2 million people were diagnosed with cancer, and nearly 10 million cancer patients died worldwide. An effective cancer care pathway must be based on coordination, multidisciplinarity, a personalized approach, and collaboration between stakeholders. Follow-up can be improved by good collaboration and communication between GPs and the cancer care team at a common level of organization., Objectives: To study patients with solid cancers and assess their perceptions of the care pathway, the roles of the healthcare professionals involved, and interprofessional collaboration., Methods: In a preliminary, qualitative study (part of the SINPATIC study of general practitioners, oncologists, nurses, and patients), adult patients with cancer in the Paris area of France were interviewed between January and April 2018. Using purposive sampling, 10 patients were recruited from hospital departments and primary care. An interview guide explored 3 themes: the care pathway, the stakeholders' roles in follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration., Results: For patients, dealing with cancer is a complex process of awareness, care provision, decision-making, task assignment, a lack of clarification of professional roles, a piecemeal announcement of the diagnosis of cancer by several stakeholders, organizational and administrative difficulties, non-formal collaboration in inertia (tending towards collaboration under construction), and with cancer follow-up that was usually parallel, sometimes shared, rarely sequential., Conclusion: This SINPATIC substudy provided us a better understanding of the complexity of the patient care pathway. Looking forward, the present findings might stimulate thoughts on the design and development of interventional studies., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP)., Objective(s): To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways., Methods: Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France., Results: Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient., Conclusion: In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) were on the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak. Identifying clinical profiles in COVID-19 might improve patient care and enable closer monitoring of at-risk profiles., Objectives: To identify COVID-19 profiles in a population of adult primary care patients, and to determine whether the profiles were associated with negative outcomes and persistent symptoms., Design, Setting and Participants: In a prospective multicentre study, 44 GPs from multiprofessional primary care practices in the Paris area of France recruited 340 consecutive adult patients (median age: 47 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first two waves of the epidemic., Method and Outcome: A latent class (LC) analysis with 11 indicators (clinical signs and symptoms) was performed. The resulting profiles were characterised by a 3-month composite outcome (COVID-19-related hospital admission and/or death) and persistent symptoms three and 6 months after inclusion., Results: We identified six profiles: 'paucisymptomatic' (LC1, 9%), 'anosmia and/or ageusia' (LC2, 12.9%), 'influenza-like syndrome with anosmia and ageusia' (LC3, 15.5%), 'influenza-like syndrome without anosmia or ageusia' (LC4, 24.5%), 'influenza-like syndrome with respiratory impairment' (LC5) and a 'complete form' (LC6, 17.7%). At 3 months, 7.4% of the patients were hospitalised (with higher rates in LC5), and 18% had persistent symptoms (with higher rates in LC5 and LC6). At 6 months, 6.4% of the patients had persistent symptoms, with no differences between LCs., Conclusion: Our findings might help GPs to identify patients at risk of persistent COVID-19 symptoms and hospital admission and then set up procedures for closer monitoring., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe and compare the initial clinical characteristics of a cohort of patients with suspected COVID-19 managed by general practitioners (GPs); to assess whether 3-month persistent symptoms were more frequent among confirmed cases than among no-COVID cases; and to identify factors predictive of persistent symptoms and adverse outcomes among confirmed cases., Design and Setting: A comparative, prospective, multicentre cohort study in primary care in the Paris region of France., Participants: 521 patients aged ≥18 with suspected COVID-19 were enrolled between March and May 2020., Outcome Measures: Initial symptoms, COVID-19 status, persistent symptoms 3 months after inclusion and a composite criterion for potentially COVID-19-related events (hospitalisation, death, emergency department visits). The final COVID-19 status ('confirmed', 'no-COVID' and 'uncertain' cases) was determined by the GP after the receipt of the laboratory test results., Results: 516 patients were analysed; 166 (32.2%) were classified into the 'confirmed COVID' group, 180 (34.9%) into the 'no-COVID' group and 170 (32.9%) in the 'uncertain COVID' group. Confirmed cases were more likely to have persistent symptoms than no-COVID cases (p=0.09); initial fever/feeling feverish and anosmia were independently associated with persistent symptoms. At 3 months, we observed 16 (9.8%) COVID-19-related hospital admissions, 3 (1.8%) intensive care unit admissions, 13 (37.1%) referrals to an emergency department and no death. Age >70 and/or at least one comorbidity (OR 6.53; 95% CI 1.13-37.84; p=0.036), abnormalities in a lung examination (15.39; 95% CI 1.61-146.77; p=0.057) and two or more systemic symptoms (38.61; 95% CI 2.30-647.40; p=0.011) were associated with the composite criterion., Conclusions: Although most patients with COVID-19 in primary care had mild disease with a benign course, almost one in six had persistent symptoms at 3 months. These symptoms were more frequent in the 'confirmed COVID' group. Our findings need to be confirmed in a prospective study with longer follow-up., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)