Dataset Information

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: A qualitative mixed-methods analysis.

ABSTRACT: Cancer care is complex and involves many different healthcare providers, especially during diagnosis and initial treatment, and it has been reported that both general practitioners and oncology specialists experience difficulties with interdisciplinary communication. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore information sharing between primary and secondary care for patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. A qualitative content analysis of 50 medical files (419 documents) was performed, which identified 70 correspondence-related items. Six main topics were identified in most referral letters from primary to secondary care, but it was particularly notable that highly relevant information regarding the past medical history was often mixed with less relevant information. To lesser extents, the same held true for the medication list and presenting history. In the letters from specialists, nine topics were identified in most letters. Although information about actual treatment was always present, only limited detail, if any, was given about the intent of the treatment (curative or palliative) or the treatment alternatives. Interviews with nine healthcare providers confirmed these issues. These findings indicate that neither the initial referral nor the specialist correspondence is tailored to the needs of the recipient.

SUBMITTER: Stegmann ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6588262 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: A qualitative mixed-methods analysis.

Stegmann Mariken E ME Meijer Jiska M JM Nuver Janine J Havenga Klaas K Hiltermann Thijo J N TJN Maduro John H JH Schuling Jan J Berendsen Annette J AJ

European journal of cancer care 20180823 1

Cancer care is complex and involves many different healthcare providers, especially during diagnosis and initial treatment, and it has been reported that both general practitioners and oncology specialists experience difficulties with interdisciplinary communication. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore information sharing between primary and secondary care for patients with lung, breast or colorectal cancer. A qualitative content analysis of 50 medical files (419 documents) was perf ...[more]

PMID: 30138956

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Personal health records (PHRs) provide the opportunity for self-management support, enhancing communication between patients and caregivers, and maintaining and/or improving the quality of chronic disease management. Their implementation is a multi-level and complex process, requiring a holistic approach that takes into account the technology, its users and the context of implementation. The aim of this research is to evaluate the fidelity of a PHR in chronic care (the degree to which it was implemented as intended) in order to explain the found effects. METHODS:A convergent parallel mixed methods design was used, where qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel, analyzed separately, and finally merged. Log data of 536 users were used to gain insight into the actual long-term use of the PHR (the dose). Focus group meetings among caregivers (n?=?13) were conducted to assess program differentiation (or intended use). Interviews with caregivers (n?=?28) and usability tests with potential end-users (n?=?13) of the PHR were used to understand the responsiveness and the differences and similarities between the intended and actual use of the PHR. RESULTS:The results of the focus groups showed that services for coaching are strongly associated with monitoring health values and education. However, the PHR was not used that way during the study period. In the interviews, caregivers indicated that they were ignorant on how to deploy the PHR in current working routines. Therefore, they find it difficult to motivate their patients in using the PHR. Participants in the usability study indicate that they would value a PHR in the future, given that the usability will be improved and that the caregivers will use it in daily practice as well. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, actual use of the PHRs by patients was influenced by the responsiveness of caregivers. This responsiveness is likely to be strongly influenced by the perceived support when defining the differentiation and delivery of the PHR. A mixed-methods approach to understand intervention fidelity was of added value in providing explanations for the found effects that could not be revealed by solely focusing on the effectiveness of the technology in an experimental trial.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Poor quality communication between hospital doctors and GPs at the time of hospital discharge is associated with adverse patient outcomes. This may be more marked after an episode of critical illness, the complications of which can persist long after hospital discharge. AIMS:1. to evaluate information sharing between ICU staff and GPs after a critical illness 2. to identify factors influencing the flow and utilisation of this information. METHODS:Parallel mixed methods observational study in an Irish setting, with equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative data derived from GP and ICU consultant questionnaires. Qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews with GPs and consultants, and were analysed using directed content analysis. Mixing of data occurred at the stage of interpretation. RESULTS:GPs rarely received information about an episode of critical illness directly from ICU staff, with most coming from patients and relatives. Information received from hospital sources was frequently brief and incomplete. Common communication barriers reported by consultants were insufficient time, low perceived importance and difficulty establishing GP contact. When provided information, GPs seldom actioned specific interventions, citing insufficient guidance in hospital correspondence and poor knowledge about critical illness complications and their management. A majority of all respondents thought that improved information sharing would benefit patients. Cultural influences on practice were identified in qualitative data. A priori qualitative themes were: (1) perceived benefits of information sharing, (2) factors influencing current practice and (3) strategies for optimal information sharing. Emergent themes were: (4) the central role of the GP in patient care, (5) the concept of the "whole patient journey" and (6) a culture of expectation around a GP's knowledge of hospital care. CONCLUSIONS:Practical and cultural factors contribute to suboptimal information sharing between ICU and primary care doctors around an episode of critical illness in ICU. We propose a three-milestone strategy to improve the flow and utilisation of information when patients are admitted, discharged or die within the ICU.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is a prevalent health concern in the United States (US) and a frequent reason for patients to seek primary care. The challenges associated with developing effective pain management strategies can be perceived as a burden on the patient-provider relationship.ObjectiveThis study explored the relationship between patients' overall satisfaction with their primary care providers (PCPs) and their satisfaction with their chronic pain treatment, as well as the provider behaviors that contributed to chronic pain patients' satisfaction with their PCPs.DesignConcurrent nested mixed-methods design PARTICIPANTS: 97 patients with chronic pain who were assigned to the usual care arm of the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) study.ApproachWe analyzed phone interview and survey data (n?=?97). Interviews assessed provider behaviors that led to patient satisfaction. Interview transcripts were analyzed based on a content analysis approach. Survey responses assessed patient satisfaction with primary care and pain services. We calculated a Pearson's correlation coefficient using five response categories.Key resultsInterviews revealed that high satisfaction with primary care was driven by five concrete PCP behaviors: (1) listening, (2) maintaining communication with patients, (3) acting as an access point to comprehensive pain care, (4) providing an honest assessment of the possibilities of pain care, and (5) taking time during consultations with patients. In surveys, participants reported higher satisfaction with their primary care services than with the pain services they received; these variables were only moderately correlated (r?=?0.586).ConclusionsResults suggest that patients with chronic pain can view the relationship with their PCPs as positive, even in the face of low satisfaction with their pain treatment. The expectations that these patients held of PCPs could be met regardless of providers' ability to successfully relieve chronic pain.

Dataset Information

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: A qualitative mixed-methods analysis.

Publications

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: A qualitative mixed-methods analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure