Marianne Heins1, François Schellevis2,3, Mirjam Schotman4, Bart van Bezooijen4, Ismene Tchaoussoglou5,6, Mirjam van der Waart6, Lilan Veldhuis7, Sandra van Dulmen8,9,10, Gé Donker3, Joke Korevaar11. 1. Researcher, Department of General Practice, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Professor, Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Senior Researcher, Department of General Practice, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Urologist, Department of Urology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 5. Medical Coordinator, MCC Eemland, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 6. GP, Lepelaar GP Practice, Leusden, The Netherlands. 7. GP, Veldhuis/Blom GP Practice, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 8. Professor, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 9. Professor, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway. 10. Programme Coordinator, Department of Communication in Health Care, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 11. Programme Coordinator, Department of General Practice, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of patients with prostate cancer is increasing, which puts additional pressure on health care. GP-led follow up may help reduce costs, travel time for patients, and workload for urologists and improve continuity of care. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a new clinical pathway for GP-led prostate cancer follow-up. DESIGN & SETTING: A feasibility pilot study was performed in cooperation with six GP practices in the Dutch region of Amersfoort. METHOD: The study included 20 patients with prostate cancer in a stable phase, who were aged ≥65 years and with comorbidity. Follow-up for prostate cancer was transferred to the GP for one year. Participating GPs and urologists jointly developed a protocol. Patient satisfaction was measured at 0 and 12 months with the 'personalised care' subscale of the Consumer Quality (CQ) index 'general practice care'. Next, patients, GPs, and urologists were interviewed about their experiences. The clinical pathway was considered successful if no patients were referred back to the urologist, except for an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and if the majority of patients and participating urologists and GPs were satisfied. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients included in the study, three were referred back to the urologist because of increasing PSA levels and one died (unrelated to prostate cancer). Most patients (73%) were satisfied with the transfer of care, indicated by a score of ≥3 on the 'personalised care' subscale. GPs and urologists had confidence in the ability of GPs to provide follow-up care and preferred to continue this. CONCLUSION: The new clinical pathway was successful, warranting a larger study to provide evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of GP-led prostate cancer follow-up.
BACKGROUND: The number of patients with prostate cancer is increasing, which puts additional pressure on health care. GP-led follow up may help reduce costs, travel time for patients, and workload for urologists and improve continuity of care. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a new clinical pathway for GP-led prostate cancer follow-up. DESIGN & SETTING: A feasibility pilot study was performed in cooperation with six GP practices in the Dutch region of Amersfoort. METHOD: The study included 20 patients with prostate cancer in a stable phase, who were aged ≥65 years and with comorbidity. Follow-up for prostate cancer was transferred to the GP for one year. Participating GPs and urologists jointly developed a protocol. Patient satisfaction was measured at 0 and 12 months with the 'personalised care' subscale of the Consumer Quality (CQ) index 'general practice care'. Next, patients, GPs, and urologists were interviewed about their experiences. The clinical pathway was considered successful if no patients were referred back to the urologist, except for an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and if the majority of patients and participating urologists and GPs were satisfied. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients included in the study, three were referred back to the urologist because of increasing PSA levels and one died (unrelated to prostate cancer). Most patients (73%) were satisfied with the transfer of care, indicated by a score of ≥3 on the 'personalised care' subscale. GPs and urologists had confidence in the ability of GPs to provide follow-up care and preferred to continue this. CONCLUSION: The new clinical pathway was successful, warranting a larger study to provide evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of GP-led prostate cancer follow-up.
Entities:
Keywords:
aftercare; general practice; health services; neoplasms; primary health care; prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Christina Lacchetti; Jonathan Bergman; Ralph J Hauke; Karen E Hoffman; Terrence M Kungel; Alicia K Morgans; David F Penson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; Filiberto Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anne Dahlhaus; Nicholas Vanneman; Corina Guethlin; Johanna Behrend; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Jon Emery; Juanita Doorey; Michael Jefford; Madeleine King; Marie Pirotta; Dickon Hayne; Andrew Martin; Lyndal Trevena; Tee Lim; Roger Constable; Cynthia Hawks; Amelia Hyatt; Akhlil Hamid; John Violet; Suki Gill; Mark Frydenberg; Penelope Schofield Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.692