Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Apr;61(585):173-82.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X567108.

Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

Eike Adams  1 , Mary Boulton, Peter Rose, Susi Lund, Alison Richardson, Sue Wilson, Eila Watson
Affiliations

Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

Eike Adams et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown.

Aim: To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care.

Design of study: Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach.

Setting: Six general practices in the Thames Valley area.

Method: Semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and focus groups with primary care teams.

Results: Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role.

Conclusion: Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Department of Health. Cancer reform strategy. London: Department of Health; 2007. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Publicati... (accessed 4 Mar 2011)
    1. Campbell N, MacLeod U, Weller D. Primary care oncology: essential if high quality cancer care is to be achieved for all. Fam Pract. 2002;19(6):577–578. - PubMed
    1. Kendall M, Boyd K, Campbell C, et al. How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract. 2006;23(6):644–650. - PubMed
    1. Cancer Action Team. Holistic common assessment of supportive and palliative care needs for adults with cancer: assessment guidance. London: Cancer Action Team, department of health; 2007. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Publicati... (accessed 4 Mar 2011)
    1. Greenfield DM, Absolom K, Eiser C, et al. Follow-up care for cancer survivors: the views of clinicians. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(4):568–574. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types