BACKGROUND: Follow-up care for prostate cancer has traditionally been led by secondary care in hospital out-patient clinics. As the number of men with prostate cancer increases and secondary care resources face pressure, alternative follow-up models are being sought. Current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance recommends follow-up outside the hospital setting for patients who are stable 2 years following radical treatment and for those undergoing 'watchful waiting'. OBJECTIVE: To describe current practice in a sample of relevant health care professionals and to seek their views on the role of primary care in prostate cancer follow-up. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 38 UK health care professionals, from both secondary and primary care. Transcripts were analysed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: There are marked variations in current follow-up practice around the country, with hospital-based follow-up ranging from 6 months to lifetime. The predominant, although not universal, view expressed was that there is both scope and support for primary care to play a greater role, particularly for men with stable disease. This was qualified by the need for supporting education, including guidance on interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values, introduction of robust follow-up systems in primary care, easy access back into secondary (hospital) care, a mechanism for ensuring follow-up data can still be collected for audit purposes and appropriate resourcing. CONCLUSIONS: If primary care is to play a significant role in providing high-quality follow-up care for men with prostate cancer, then steps need to be taken to address the barriers to increased primary care involvement identified by this study.
BACKGROUND: Follow-up care for prostate cancer has traditionally been led by secondary care in hospital out-patient clinics. As the number of men with prostate cancer increases and secondary care resources face pressure, alternative follow-up models are being sought. Current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance recommends follow-up outside the hospital setting for patients who are stable 2 years following radical treatment and for those undergoing 'watchful waiting'. OBJECTIVE: To describe current practice in a sample of relevant health care professionals and to seek their views on the role of primary care in prostate cancer follow-up. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 38 UK health care professionals, from both secondary and primary care. Transcripts were analysed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: There are marked variations in current follow-up practice around the country, with hospital-based follow-up ranging from 6 months to lifetime. The predominant, although not universal, view expressed was that there is both scope and support for primary care to play a greater role, particularly for men with stable disease. This was qualified by the need for supporting education, including guidance on interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values, introduction of robust follow-up systems in primary care, easy access back into secondary (hospital) care, a mechanism for ensuring follow-up data can still be collected for audit purposes and appropriate resourcing. CONCLUSIONS: If primary care is to play a significant role in providing high-quality follow-up care for men with prostate cancer, then steps need to be taken to address the barriers to increased primary care involvement identified by this study.
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: Eila Watson; Peter Rose; Emma Frith; Freddie Hamdy; David Neal; Christof Kastner; Simon Russell; Fiona M Walter; Sara Faithfull; Jane Wolstenholme; Rafael Perera; David Weller; Christine Campbell; Clare Wilkinson; Richard Neal; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Hugh Butcher; Mike Matthews Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Veronica Nanton; Rebecca Appleton; Jeremy Dale; Julia Roscoe; Thomas Hamborg; Sam H Ahmedzai; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Douglas Badger; Nicholas James; Richard Mendelsohn; Omar Khan; Deepak Parashar; Prashant Patel Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-07-28
Authors: Julia Wade; Peter N Holding; Susan Bonnington; Leila Rooshenas; J Athene Lane; C Elizabeth Salter; Kate Tilling; Mark J Speakman; Simon F Brewster; Simon Evans; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J Cockle-Hearne; F Charnay-Sonnek; L Denis; H E Fairbanks; D Kelly; S Kav; K Leonard; E van Muilekom; P Fernandez-Ortega; B T Jensen; S Faithfull Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David W Donnelly; Conan Donnelly; Therese Kearney; David Weller; Linda Sharp; Amy Downing; Sarah Wilding; Penny Wright; Paul Kind; James W F Catto; William R Cross; Malcolm D Mason; Eilis McCaughan; Richard Wagland; Eila Watson; Rebecca Mottram; Majorie Allen; Hugh Butcher; Luke Hounsome; Peter Selby; Dyfed Huws; David H Brewster; Emma McNair; Carol Rivas; Johana Nayoan; Mike Horton; Lauren Matheson; Adam W Glaser; Anna Gavin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 5.588