AIM: To investigate general practitioners' (GP) perceptions about communication when providing cancer care. METHODS: A self-report survey, which included an open response section, was mailed to a random sample of 1969 eligible Australian GPs. Content analysis of open response comments pertaining to communication was undertaken in order to ascertain GPs' views about communication issues in the provision of cancer care. RESULTS: Of the 648 GPs who completed the survey, 68 (10%) included open response comments about interprofessional communication. Participants who commented on communication were a median age of 50 years and worked 33 h/week; 28% were male and 59% practiced in the metropolitan area. Comments pertaining to communication were coded using five non-mutually exclusive categories: being kept in the loop; continuity of care; relationships with specialists; positive communication experiences; and strategies for improving communication.GPs repeatedly noted the importance of receiving detailed and timely communication from specialists and hospitals, particularly in relation to patients' treatment regimes and follow-up care. Several GPs remarked that they were left out of "the information loop" and that patients were "lost" or "dumped" after referral. CONCLUSION: While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, detailed and timely communication between specialists and GPs is imperative to support shared care and ensure optimal patient outcomes. This research highlights the need for established channels of communication between specialist and primary care medicine to support greater involvement by GPs in cancer care.
AIM: To investigate general practitioners' (GP) perceptions about communication when providing cancer care. METHODS: A self-report survey, which included an open response section, was mailed to a random sample of 1969 eligible Australian GPs. Content analysis of open response comments pertaining to communication was undertaken in order to ascertain GPs' views about communication issues in the provision of cancer care. RESULTS: Of the 648 GPs who completed the survey, 68 (10%) included open response comments about interprofessional communication. Participants who commented on communication were a median age of 50 years and worked 33 h/week; 28% were male and 59% practiced in the metropolitan area. Comments pertaining to communication were coded using five non-mutually exclusive categories: being kept in the loop; continuity of care; relationships with specialists; positive communication experiences; and strategies for improving communication.GPs repeatedly noted the importance of receiving detailed and timely communication from specialists and hospitals, particularly in relation to patients' treatment regimes and follow-up care. Several GPs remarked that they were left out of "the information loop" and that patients were "lost" or "dumped" after referral. CONCLUSION: While many GPs are currently involved in some aspects of cancer management, detailed and timely communication between specialists and GPs is imperative to support shared care and ensure optimal patient outcomes. This research highlights the need for established channels of communication between specialist and primary care medicine to support greater involvement by GPs in cancer care.
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: Marianne Heins; François Schellevis; Mirjam Schotman; Bart van Bezooijen; Ismene Tchaoussoglou; Mirjam van der Waart; Lilan Veldhuis; Sandra van Dulmen; Gé Donker; Joke Korevaar Journal: BJGP Open Date: 2018-12-12
Authors: Anne Nicolaisen; Gitte Bruun Lauridsen; Peter Haastrup; Dorte Gilså Hansen; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Gabriella Marx; Tina Mallon; Nadine Janis Pohontsch; Franziska Schade; Judith Dams; Manuel Zimansky; Thomas Asendorf; Silke Böttcher; Christiane A Mueller; Michael Freitag; Eva Hummers; Hendrik van den Bussche; Ingmar Schäfer; Hans-Helmut König; Stephanie Stiel; Nils Schneider; Friedemann Nauck; Tim Friede; Martin Scherer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jan Ho; Annette McWilliams; Jon Emery; Christobel Saunders; Christopher Reid; Suzanne Robinson; Fraser Brims Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2017-06-12