Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Organizing substitution of oncological follow-up to primary care: perspectives from secondary care providers.
Liemburg, G.B., Korevaar, J.C., Berendsen, A.J., Berger, M.Y., Brandenberg, D. Organizing substitution of oncological follow-up to primary care: perspectives from secondary care providers. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 2025
Purpose
The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers' views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors.
Methods
A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers.
Results
Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs' accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types.
Conclusions
The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs.
Implications for cancer survivors
Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers' views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors.
Methods
A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers.
Results
Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs' accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types.
Conclusions
The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs.
Implications for cancer survivors
Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
Purpose
The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers' views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors.
Methods
A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers.
Results
Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs' accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types.
Conclusions
The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs.
Implications for cancer survivors
Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers' views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors.
Methods
A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers.
Results
Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs' accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types.
Conclusions
The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs.
Implications for cancer survivors
Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.