Dataset Information

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Multidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care. METHOD:We used descriptive survey data from patients and doctors in the intervention group based on a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the user perspectives and fidelity of the intervention. RESULTS:Patients expressed that they were able to present their concerns in 95% of the consultations, and believed it was beneficial to have both their doctors present in 84%. The general practitioner and oncologist found that tripartite video consultation would lead to better coordination of care in almost 90% of the consultations. However, the benefits of handling social issues and comorbidity were sparser. Consultations were not accomplished in 11% due to technical problems and sound and video quality were non-satisfactory in 20%. CONCLUSION:Overall, multidisciplinary video consultations between cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist were feasible in daily clinics. Initial barriers to address were technical issues and seamless planning. Patients reported high satisfaction, patient centredness and clarity of roles. General practitioners and oncologists were overall positive regarding role clarification and continuity, although less pronounced than patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clincialtrials.gov , NCT02716168.

SUBMITTER: Trabjerg TB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7686003 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners.

Trabjerg Theis Bitz TB Jensen Lars Henrik LH Søndergaard Jens J Sisler Jeffrey James JJ Hansen Dorte Gilså DG

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20200421 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Multidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care.<h4>Method</h4>We used descriptive su ...[more]

PMID: 32318872

Similar Datasets

Project description:Shared care models in the field of cancer aim to improve care coordination, role clarification and patient satisfaction. Cross-sectoral communication is pivotal. Involvement of patients may add to intended mechanisms.A randomised controlled trial 'The Partnership Study' tested the effect of bringing together patient, general practitioner (GP) and oncologist for a consultation conducted by video.PurposeAs part of the process evaluation, this study aimed to explore experiences, attitudes and perspectives of the oncological department on sharing patient consultations with GPs using video.MethodsFour semistructured interviews with five oncologists and four nurse specialists were conducted in February 2020. We focused on the informants' experiences and reflections on the potential of future implementation of the concept 'inviting the GP for a shared consultation by video'. The analyses were based on an inductive, open-minded, hermeneutic phenomenological approach.ResultsA total of six overall themes were identified: structuring consultation and communication, perceptions of GP involvement in cancer care, stressors, making a difference, alternative ways of cross-sector communication and needs for redesigning the model. The concept made sense and was deemed useful, but solving the many technical and organisational problems is pivotal. Case-specific tasks and relational issues were targeted by pragmatically rethinking protocol expectations and the usual way of communication and structuring patient encounters. Case selection was discussed as one way of maturing the concept.ConclusionThis Danish study adds new insight into understanding different aspects of the process, causal mechanisms as well as the potential of future implementation of video-based tripartite encounters. Beyond solving the technical problems, case selection and organisational issues are important. Acknowledging the disruption of the usual workflow, the introduction of new phases of the usual encounter and the variety of patient-GP relationships to be embraced may help to better understand and comply with barriers and facilitators of communication and sharing.Trial registration numberNCT02716168.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic imposed an acute, sharp rise in the use of video consultations (VCs) by general practitioners (GPs) in Norway.ObjectiveThis study aims to document GPs' experiences with the large-scale uptake of VCs in the natural experiment context of the pandemic.MethodsA nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Norwegian GPs during the pandemic lockdown (April 14-May 3, 2020). Each respondent was asked to evaluate up to 10 VCs. Basic demographic characteristics of the GPs and their practices were collected. The associations between GPs' perceived suitability of the VCs, the nature of the patients' main problems, prior knowledge of the patients (relational continuity), and follow-up of previously presented problems (episodic continuity) were explored using descriptive statistics, diagrams, and chi-square tests.ResultsIn total, 1237 GPs (26% of the target group) responded to the survey. Among these, 1000 GPs offered VCs, and 855 GPs evaluated a total of 3484 VCs. Most GPs who offered VCs (1000/1237; 81%) had no experience with VCs before the pandemic. Overall, 51% (1766/3476) of the evaluated VCs were considered to have similar or even better suitability to assess the main reason for contact, compared to face-to-face consultations. In the presence of relational continuity, VCs were considered equal to or better than face-to-face consultations in 57% (1011/1785) of cases, as opposed to 32% (87/274) when the patient was unknown. The suitability rate for follow-up consultations (episodic continuity) was 61% (1165/1919), compared to 35% (544/1556) for new patient problems. Suitability varied considerably across clinical contact reasons. VCs were found most suitable for anxiety and life stress, depression, and administrative purposes, as well as for longstanding or complex problems that normally require multiple follow-up consultations. The GPs estimate that they will conduct about 20% of their consultations by video in a future, nonpandemic setting.ConclusionsOur study of VCs performed in general practice during the pandemic lockdown indicates a clear future role for VCs in nonpandemic settings. The strong and consistent association between continuity of care and GPs' perceptions of the suitability of VCs is a new and important finding with considerable relevance for future primary health care planning.

Project description:Telemedicine allows delivery of healthcare to occur between parties that are not in the same location. As telemedicine users are not co-present, effective communication methods are crucial to the delivery and reception of information. The aim of this study was to explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and patients on the interactional components of telemedicine consultations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were held with telemedicine users; 15 GPs and nine patients self-selected from a larger telemedicine study. Participants were asked about their preparation for telemedicine consultations, conducting telemedicine consultations and post-consultation activities. Deidentified transcripts from the interviews were analysed thematically. GPs and patients discussed factors they used to decide whether a consultation would be best conducted by telemedicine or in-person; the condition to be discussed, the existing doctor-patient relationship and whether physical examination was required. Participants also described how they prepared for their telemedicine consultations, gathering relevant documents, and reading previous notes. Participants described strategies they employed to optimise the telemedicine interaction; improving conversational flow and building rapport, as well as difficulties they experienced when trying to provide and receive care via telemedicine. Patient factors including health literacy and familiarity with technology affect the transfer of information shared during telemedicine consultations and consideration of these factors when choosing patients for telemedicine is required. Many GPs and patients have innate communication skills to effectively deliver and receive care through telemedicine. However, they may not be aware of these subconscious techniques to use to optimise telemedicine consultations. Communication training could be delivered to increase conversational flow, build rapport, and establish safety netting.

Project description:IntroductionFacilitators 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.MethodsSemi-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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionPatients, 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 contributionPatients 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.

Project description:BackgroundVulnerable pregnant women, defined as women threatened by social, psychological, or physical risk factors, need special support during pregnancy to prevent complications in pregnancy, birth, and childhood. Proper cross-sectoral collaboration in antenatal care is paramount to delivering sufficient supportive care to these women. General practitioners (GPs) often face barriers when assessing vulnerable pregnant women and may; as a result, under-identify and underreport child abuse. Little is known about how the cross-sectoral collaboration in antenatal care affects the GP's opportunities of managing vulnerable pregnant women. This study explores GPs' perceived barriers and facilitators in the antenatal care collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women and in the reporting of these women to social services.MethodsA qualitative study with semi-structured focus group interviews among twenty GPs from the Region of Southern Denmark. A mixed inductive and deductive analytic strategy was applied, structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).ResultsThree themes emerged: I) collaborative experience, II) motivation, and III) organizational working conditions. Barriers were lacking experience, i.e. knowledge, skills, and attention to antenatal care collaboration and reporting, inadequate organizational working contexts, i.e. insufficient pathways for communication between health care and social care systems, and laws restricting feedback on the consequences of reporting. This decreased the GPs motivation, i.e. poor confidence in navigating the system, fear of breaking the patient alliance when collaborating in antenatal care and reporting with the social services. GPs motivation to collaborate and report was increased by knowing the working contexts of their collaborative partners in the antenatal care and social services system and by a strong doctor-patient relationship enabling them to describe the vulnerability to collaborators.ConclusionsGPs experience system-related barriers to collaborating and reporting on vulnerable pregnant women within the health care sector and in the interplay with the social services sector. Organizational development of cross-sectoral antenatal care collaboration should imply user involvement of all collaborative partners. Results suggest that health authorities should consider establishing accessible communication pathways between the GPs and the social services to improve options for proper cross-sectoral communication and feedback to GPs, thereby improving care trajectories of vulnerable pregnant women.

Project description:IntroductionVideo consultations have proven to be a powerful support tool for patient-doctor interactions in general, not only during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzed the feasibility and usefulness of orthopedic telemedical consultations (OTCs) for orthopedic patients at the interface of a clinic and general practitioners.MethodsThe study was carried out at an orthopedic department of a German hospital between April 2020 and October 2020. After written informed consent was obtained, general practitioners (GPs) of a large adjunct health region could present their patients with orthopedic pathologies to specialists at the hospital via OTCs instead of the usual live consultation (LC). The patients, specialists and GPs were evaluated for their OTC experience and attitude (5-point Likert-scale and open questions, 19 to 27 items).ResultsA total of 89 video consultations took place with 76 patients, 16 GPs and six specialists. The average distance between the GPs/patients and the hospital was 141.9 km. The OTCs were rated as pleasant, and the experience was rated as very satisfying (average Likert-Scale rating, with 5 as strong agreement: specialists = 4.8; GPs = 4.9; patients = 4.7). Following the OTC, a LC was not necessary in 76.4% of cases. Patients with a necessary LC after an OTC showed significantly lower satisfaction with the OTC (p = 0.005). Time savings, the elimination of travel and quick contact with orthopedic consultants were positively highlighted by the participants. A total of 123 recommendations for further treatment were given, such as the initiation of physiotherapy/medication and the use of imaging diagnostics. Different technical and organizational challenges could be identified and addressed.DiscussionThe vast majority of the participants stated they had a very positive impression. In particular, the potential savings in travel and time as well as straightforward contact with specialists were rated positively. However, limitations in the assessment of initial presentations of complex medical conditions were also highlighted. Further studies on OTCs with a consultative health professional may show other fields of use for this mode of interdisciplinary remote communication.

Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, skin cancer screening (SCS) is available free of charge every two years to all those with statutory health insurance over the age of 35. General Practitioners (GP) can carry out the screening if they have completed an 8-hour training course. GPs play a crucial role in the implementation of SCS and act as gatekeepers between initial patient contact and referral to dermatologists.ObjectiveTo record how comprehensively GPs carry out SCS in terms of patient information and body examination, as well as to explore GPs opinions on the feasibility of SCS.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted. A questionnaire was sent to GPs with permission to perform SCS in two regions of Germany (Bavaria and Saxony) between August and September 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed according to regions (federal state, location of physician´s office), professional experience (experience in years, number of monthly screenings, age) and gender. Open questions were evaluated using qualitative content analysis.ResultsIn the survey, 204 GPs responded. Genitalia (40.7%, 83/203), anal fold (62.3%, 127/204) and oral mucosa (66.7%, 136/204) were the least examined body regions during screening. Information on risks (false-positive findings: 18.6%, 38/203; false-negative findings: 13.2%, 27/203; overdiagnosis: 7.8%, 16/203) and benefits (48.0%, 98/202) were not always provided. GPs who performed screenings more frequently were more likely to provide information about the benefits of SCS (p<0.001; >10 vs. <5 screenings per month). Opinions were provided on uncertainties, knowledge requirements, structural and organizational requirements of SCS, SCS training and evaluation. The organization and remuneration of the SCS programme was seen as a barrier to implementation. GPs expressed uncertainties especially in unclear findings and in dermatoscopy.ConclusionUncertainties in the implementation of the SCS should be addressed by offering refresher courses. Good networking between GPs and dermatologists is essential to improve SCS quality.

Dataset Information

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners.

Publications

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets