AIM: Evidence suggests that follow-up after colorectal cancer improves survival. Colorectal cancer is so common that patient follow-up can overwhelm a service, affecting the ability to see new referrals and reassess patients seen previously who have new symptoms. In order to cope with this demand a nurse-led follow-up service was started in 2004. We aimed to review the results of a nurse-led colorectal cancer follow-up clinic. METHOD: Between 1 December 2004 and 31 January 2011, patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer were followed up by a nurse specialist according to a protocol determined by the colorectal surgeons in the unit. All patient details were recorded prospectively in a purpose designed database. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty patients were followed up over 7 years. Some 368 patients were discharged from the follow-up programme, 474 patients remain actively involved in the programme and 108 patients died. Of the patients discharged from the follow-up scheme 269 (73%) were discharged to their general practitioner free of disease after 5 years. Of the 108 who patients died, 98 were as a result of colorectal cancer. Twenty patients (2.1%) were identified with local (peri-anastomotic) disease recurrence and 93 patients (9.8%) were found to have developed distant metastatic disease. Of these, 65 patients (6.8%) were referred for palliative care and 28 (2.9%) had surgery for focal metastatic disease of whom 18 were still alive at the time of this analysis. CONCLUSION: This paper shows that a nurse-led clinic for colorectal cancer follow-up can achieve satisfactory results with detection rates of recurrent or metastatic disease comparable to consultant follow-up. A nurse-led clinic provides the benefits of follow-up without overwhelming the consultant colorectal surgical clinic practice.
AIM: Evidence suggests that follow-up after colorectal cancer improves survival. Colorectal cancer is so common that patient follow-up can overwhelm a service, affecting the ability to see new referrals and reassess patients seen previously who have new symptoms. In order to cope with this demand a nurse-led follow-up service was started in 2004. We aimed to review the results of a nurse-led colorectal cancer follow-up clinic. METHOD: Between 1 December 2004 and 31 January 2011, patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer were followed up by a nurse specialist according to a protocol determined by the colorectal surgeons in the unit. All patient details were recorded prospectively in a purpose designed database. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty patients were followed up over 7 years. Some 368 patients were discharged from the follow-up programme, 474 patients remain actively involved in the programme and 108 patients died. Of the patients discharged from the follow-up scheme 269 (73%) were discharged to their general practitioner free of disease after 5 years. Of the 108 who patients died, 98 were as a result of colorectal cancer. Twenty patients (2.1%) were identified with local (peri-anastomotic) disease recurrence and 93 patients (9.8%) were found to have developed distant metastatic disease. Of these, 65 patients (6.8%) were referred for palliative care and 28 (2.9%) had surgery for focal metastatic disease of whom 18 were still alive at the time of this analysis. CONCLUSION: This paper shows that a nurse-led clinic for colorectal cancer follow-up can achieve satisfactory results with detection rates of recurrent or metastatic disease comparable to consultant follow-up. A nurse-led clinic provides the benefits of follow-up without overwhelming the consultant colorectal surgical clinic practice.
Authors: Tarik Sammour; Andrew Macleod; Tim J Chittleborough; Raaj Chandra; Susan M Shedda; Ian A Hastie; Ian T Jones; Ian P Hayes Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Jacqueline de Leeuw; Judith B Prins; Steven Teerenstra; Matthias A W Merkx; Henri A M Marres; Theo van Achterberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer R Tomasone; Melissa C Brouwers; Marija Vukmirovic; Eva Grunfeld; Mary Ann O'Brien; Robin Urquhart; Melanie Walker; Fiona Webster; Margaret Fitch Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2016-09-06
Authors: Peter Murchie; Patricia F Norwood; Marta Pietrucin-Materek; Terry Porteous; Philip C Hannaford; Mandy Ryan Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L Batehup; K Porter; H Gage; P Williams; P Simmonds; E Lowson; L Dodson; N J Davies; R Wagland; J D Winter; A Richardson; A Turner; J L Corner Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.603