PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up care in Nova Scotia, Canada. More specifically, the objectives were to describe adherence to two elements of follow-up guidelines (colonoscopies and physician visits) and to identify factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care. METHODS: All patients with stage II or III CRC undergoing curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia, Canada, were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to additional administrative health databases. For a 3-year follow-up period, beginning 1 year after the diagnosis date, descriptive statistics were calculated for physician visits and colonoscopies. Factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Most patients received follow-up care from multiple physician specialties. In year 3, 58.1% of patients received oncologist follow-up care. Guideline adherence for colonoscopies was 52.4%, whereas guideline adherence for physician visits decreased from 41.9% to 25.4%. Receipt of at least guideline-recommended care was inversely associated with age and comorbidity for colonoscopy and inversely associated with age for physician visits. CONCLUSION: Receipt of follow-up care from oncologists and primary care physicians, prolonged oncologist care, and receipt of care inconsistent with guideline recommendations suggest there may be potential issues with inefficient use of cancer system resources and integration of guidelines into follow-up care practices in Nova Scotia. Transitioning routine follow-up to primary care could potentially increase guideline adherence by improving access to and continuity of care. CRC may be well suited to targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve guideline adherence.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up care in Nova Scotia, Canada. More specifically, the objectives were to describe adherence to two elements of follow-up guidelines (colonoscopies and physician visits) and to identify factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care. METHODS: All patients with stage II or III CRC undergoing curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia, Canada, were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to additional administrative health databases. For a 3-year follow-up period, beginning 1 year after the diagnosis date, descriptive statistics were calculated for physician visits and colonoscopies. Factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Most patients received follow-up care from multiple physician specialties. In year 3, 58.1% of patients received oncologist follow-up care. Guideline adherence for colonoscopies was 52.4%, whereas guideline adherence for physician visits decreased from 41.9% to 25.4%. Receipt of at least guideline-recommended care was inversely associated with age and comorbidity for colonoscopy and inversely associated with age for physician visits. CONCLUSION: Receipt of follow-up care from oncologists and primary care physicians, prolonged oncologist care, and receipt of care inconsistent with guideline recommendations suggest there may be potential issues with inefficient use of cancer system resources and integration of guidelines into follow-up care practices in Nova Scotia. Transitioning routine follow-up to primary care could potentially increase guideline adherence by improving access to and continuity of care. CRC may be well suited to targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve guideline adherence.
Authors: Thomas Anthony; Clifford Simmang; Neil Hyman; Donald Buie; Donald Kim; Peter Cataldo; Charles Orsay; James Church; Daniel Otchy; Jeffery Cohen; W Brian Perry; Gary Dunn; Janice Rafferty; C Neal Ellis; Jan Rakinic; Phillip Fleshner; Thomas Stahl; Sharon Gregorcyk; Charles Ternent; John W Kilkenny; Mark Whiteford Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Jan Simpkins; Lonni Schultz; Gary A Chase; Christine Cole Johnson; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Lois Lamerato; David Nathanson; Greg Cooper Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Y Fong; A M Cohen; J G Fortner; W E Enker; A D Turnbull; D G Coit; A M Marrero; M Prasad; L H Blumgart; M F Brennan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D E Fleischer; S B Goldberg; T H Browning; J N Cooper; E Friedman; F H Goldner; E B Keeffe; L E Smith Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C Kendell; K M Decker; P A Groome; M L McBride; L Jiang; M K Krzyzanowska; G Porter; D Turner; R Urquhart; M Winget; E Grunfeld Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: R Vera; J Aparicio; F Carballo; M Esteva; E González-Flores; J Santianes; F Santolaya; J M Fernández-Cebrián Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Sarah Raskin; Yuqing Zhang; Gema Lane; Alexandra Zizzi; Mandi Pratt-Chapman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Robin Urquhart; Corrine Munoz-Plaza; Alexandra R Zizzi; Emily Haines; Angela Stover; Deborah K Mayer; Erin E Hahn Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Robin Urquhart; Cynthia Kendell; Joan Sargeant; Gordon Buduhan; Paul Johnson; Daniel Rayson; Eva Grunfeld; Geoffrey A Porter Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Sindu M Kanjeekal; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Guangyong Zou; Eric J Holowaty; Nancy L Richter Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2015-10-29