BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown. AIM: To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach. SETTING: Six general practices in the Thames Valley area. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and focus groups with primary care teams. RESULTS: Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role. CONCLUSION: Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.
BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancerpatients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown. AIM: To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach. SETTING: Six general practices in the Thames Valley area. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with cancerpatients and focus groups with primary care teams. RESULTS: Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role. CONCLUSION:Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.
Authors: K Absolom; C Eiser; G Michel; S J Walters; B W Hancock; R E Coleman; J A Snowden; D M Greenfield Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sonĵa E Hall; C D'Arcy J Holman; Timothy Threlfall; Harry Sheiner; Martin Phillips; Paul Katriss; Suzanne Forbes Journal: Aust J Rural Health Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.662
Authors: Mary Jo Nissen; Mary Sue Beran; Martin W Lee; Shubha R Mehta; Donald A Pine; Karen K Swenson Journal: Fam Med Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Nicole P M Ezendam; Kim A H Nicolaije; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; M Caroline Vos; Dorry Boll; Marjo van Bommel; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Eike Adams; Mary Boulton; Peter W Rose; Susi Lund; Alison Richardson; Sue Wilson; Eila K Watson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Marilyn Kendall; Bruce Mason; Natalie Momen; Stephen Barclay; Dan Munday; Roberta Lovick; Stella Macpherson; Euan Paterson; Paul Baughan; Paul Cormie; Peter Kiehlmann; Amanda Free; Scott A Murray Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Judith A Meiklejohn; Alexander Mimery; Jennifer H Martin; Ross Bailie; Gail Garvey; Euan T Walpole; Jon Adams; Daniel Williamson; Patricia C Valery Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Laura Deckx; Marjan van den Akker; Job Metsemakers; André Knottnerus; François Schellevis; Frank Buntinx Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-23