Changes in primary care provider utilization by phase of care for women diagnosed with breast cancer: a CanIMPACT longitudinal cohort study

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on the Implementation of a Web-Based Clinical Communication System for Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system ("eOncoNote") for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients' perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

The effect of comorbidity on primary care use during breast cancer chemotherapy: a population-based retrospective cohort study using CanIMPACT data

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer visit their primary care physicians (PCPs) more often during chemotherapy than before diagnosis, but the reasons are unclear. We assessed the association between physical comorbidities and mental health history (MHH) and the change in PCP use during adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using data from the Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) project. Participants were women 18 years of age and older, who had received a diagnosis of stage I-III breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2011 and had received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. We used difference-in-difference analysis using negative binomial modelling to quantify the differences in the 6-month rate of PCP visits at baseline (the 24-month period between 6 and 30 months before diagnosis) and during treatment (the 6 months from start of chemotherapy) between physical comorbidity and MHH groups.

RESULTS

Among 12 781 participants, the 6-month PCP visit rate increased during chemotherapy (mean 2.3 visits at baseline, 3.4 visits during chemotherapy). Patients with higher physical comorbidity levels or MHH visited their PCPs 4.2 or 1.7 more times, respectively, over 6 months compared to those with low physical comorbidity or no MHH at baseline and 2.5 or 1.1 more times, respectively, over 6 months during treatment. During treatment, the adjusted 6-month rate of PCP visits more than doubled in the group with the fewest physical comorbidities or no MHH compared with baseline (rate ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.43-2.61). This increase was lower in those with MHH (rate ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.68-1.96) and in the highest physical comorbidity group (rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.28).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with breast cancer who have more physical comorbidities and MHH have a higher frequency of PCP visits during adjuvant chemotherapy but lower absolute and relative increases in visits compared with baseline. Therefore, PCPs can expect to see their patients with fewer physical comorbidities and no MHH more often during chemotherapy. Primary care physicians can plan for their patients with high physical comorbidity levels and MHH to continue having frequent appointments while they undergo chemotherapy, and they can expect their patients with low physical comorbidity levels and no MHH to increase the frequency of their visits during chemotherapy, and should be prepared to provide breast cancer-related care to these patients.

Primary care use after cancer treatment: an analysis of linked administrative data

Background

Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care.

Methods

We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits.

Results

The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%.

Conclusions

Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.