Involvement Of Primary Care Physicians Research Articles

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a survey of involvement of primary care physicians.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are neglected in most patients' electrical medical report by their family physicians (FP). We have assessed whether family physicians have the proper knowledge of NAFLD and accurate training to diagnose and treat NAFLD/NASH in overweight and obese patients. We conducted an anonymous survey questionnaire. Family Physicians who participated completed 4 years of residency and have passed the final examination. Our survey contained questions to measure the physician's attitudes, source of knowledge and recommendation regarding NAFLD/NASH treatment and attitudes toward patients with NAFLD/NASH. Categorical variables were extracted and analyzed using SPSS. A total of 310 of 422 FPs were included in the study with a compliance rate of 73%. Our data suggests that 167 of the 310 FPs (55%) refer their patients to a specialist for consultations if they exhibited fatty liver disease. Yet, 284 of 310 send their patients to consolations if exhibiting elevated liver enzyme. Our data significantly suggests that 241 of 310 (78%) reported that they have limited efficacy in treating NAFLD/NASH and consider themselves not properly prepared, by medical schools, to treat NASH/NAFLD patients; as well as patients with obesity and metabolic syndrome without fatty liver. FPs are more likely to neglect proper treatment for NAFLD/NASH due to lack of proper knowledge and are more likely neglect referring patients to specialist. Patients with significant obesity and obesity related conditions are more likely to have proactive treatment plans by their FPs.

Priority and appropriateness of upper endoscopy out-patient referrals: Two-period comparison in an open-access unit

BackgroundIn the early 2000s we introduced a prioritization model for referrals based on involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. AimsAssess the application of that model of prioritisation, comparing gastroscopies performed 8 years apart, with respect to priority level, appropriateness and relevant endoscopic findings (REFs). MethodsThe studies included 247 and 354 out-patients, who had undergone gastroscopy in 2006 and in 2014, respectively. To reduce interspecialists variability, both studies were performed by the same specialist as investigator. ResultsIn both years, most patients were assigned low-priority referral by PCPs (78.6% and 75.1% respectively). The agreement PCPs versus specialist on referral priority was moderate in 2006 (0.60, Landis–Koch scale 0.41–0.60) and high in 2014 (0.81, Landis–Koch scale 0.81–1.00). In both years we observed a similar rate of inappropriateness: 27.5% and 27.1%, respectively. Due to multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) for REF increased when: (i) very high-priority referral versus nopriority referral was indicated (8.813 OR, p = 0.0012), (ii) referral followed the guidelines (9.29 OR, p<0.0001), and (iii) agreement of priority occurred (1.911 OR, p = 0.0308). ConclusionsOur findings highlighted that the issues of low-priority referrals should be addressed in order to discontinue gastroscopy overusing and reduce related operational costs.

The involvement of primary care physicians in care for childhood cancer survivors.

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at risk of developing long-term morbidity, which is likely to be presented to a primary care physician (PCP). Therefore, insight into CCS's PCP-based health care use is needed. We investigated the volume and underlying health problems of PCP-based health care use and the determinants for PCP-based health care use in CCS. Data from a Dutch cohort of 6018 eligible five-year CCS were linked to the Nivel Primary Care database, which contains detailed data from a representative sample of 10% of all Dutch PCPs. Per CCS, two matched controls were selected. Negative binomial regression was performed to compare the annual number of contacts between CCS and controls, and to identify determinants for PCP-based care use among CCS. This study included 602 CCS and 1204 controls. CCS were 1.3 times more likely to contact their PCP than controls (95% CI, 1.2-1.5), up to 1.5 times at attained age over 40 years (95% CI, 1.2-1.8). CCS were 4.9 times more likely to contact their PCP for new malignancies, 3.1 for hematological conditions, and 2.8 for endocrine conditions. Female sex, higher attained age, and treatment with radiotherapy were determinants for having more PCP contacts. PCPs play an important role in care for CCS. CCS use more PCP-based care than matched controls, mainly for severe conditions such as malignancies, hematological, and endocrine conditions. Our results emphasize the importance of disseminating the current knowledge on long-term morbidity in CCS and on their optimal follow-up care among PCPs.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for primary care depression and anxiety: a secondary meta-analytic review using robust variance estimation in meta-regression.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is well supported for treating depressive and anxiety disorders. Trials of CBT for anxiety and depression in primary care have increased over the past decade, yet only one meta-analysis, published in 2015, examined this topic and the scope of that review is relatively narrow. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary care based CBT for depression and anxiety. A search of seven electronic databases, six professional websites, and reference lists from articles meeting inclusion criteria was conducted for studies published between 1900 and November 2018. Fifty-seven eligible studies (including 10,701 participants; 221 effect sizes) of randomized controlled trials were eligible and included for meta-analysis using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Outcome indicators were depression and anxiety measures. An overall significant treatment effect, d = 0.400, 95% CI (0.235, 0.566), p < 0.001, of CBT for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care was identified. Subgroup analyses indicated significant treatment effect for: (1) depressive (d = 0.425, p < 0.001) and anxiety (d = 0.393, p < 0.01) outcomes, (2) studies conducted inside primary care (d = 0.412, p < 0.001), (3) studies using individual-based CBT (d = 0.412, p < 0.001), (4) studies without primary care physician involvement (d = 0.395, p < 0.001), and (5) studies using both tele-health (d = 0.563, p < 0.001) and in-person CBT (d = 0.363, p < 0.001). The percentage of White participants, treatment composition (CBT only versus CBT + other approaches), and treatment duration were significant moderators. Implications for clinical practice are discussed based on both moderator and subgroup analysis results.

The Role of Primary Care Physicians in Providing End-of-Life Care.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) frequently have long-term relationships with patients as well as their families. As such they are well positioned to care for their patients at the end of their lives. As the number of patients in need of end-of-life care continues to grow, it is critical to understand how PCPs can fulfill that need. The purpose of our study is to perform a narrative review of the literature and develop a theoretical model delineating the overarching roles played by PCPs in caring for patients at the end of life. For this narrative review, the authors searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to March 22, 2017. Articles were not limited by geography. Review of existing literature generally supports 4 broad categories as the primary roles for PCP involvement in end of life: pain and symptom management; information management, including transmitting and clarifying information, setting care priorities, and assisting patients with treatment decisions; coordinating care and collaborating with other providers; and addressing patients' social, emotional, and spiritual needs. Based on the results of this review, PCPs provide a wide range of services to patients at the end of life. Promoting the provision of the full scope of services by PCPs will help ensure improved continuity of care while providing the highest quality of care for patients, both in the United States and around the world.

Primary Care Physician Involvement in Shared Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and Family Satisfaction with Care.

An intensive care unit (ICU) patient's primary care physician (PCP) may be able to assist family with certain ICU shared medical decisions. We explored whether families of patients in nonopen ICUs who nevertheless report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making are more satisfied with ICU shared decision making than families who do not. Between March 2013 and December 2015, we administered the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey to family members of adult neuroscience ICU patients. We compared the mean score for the survey subsection regarding shared decision making (graded on a 100-point scale), as well as individual survey items, between those who reported the patient's PCP involvement in any medical decision making versus those who did not. Among 263 respondents, there was no difference in mean overall decision-making satisfaction scores for those who reported involvement (81.1; SD = 15.2) versus those who did not (80.1; SD = 12.8; P = .16). However, a higher proportion reporting involvement felt completely satisfied with their 1) inclusion in the ICU decision making process (75.9% vs 61.4%; P = .055), and 2) control over the care of the patient (73.6% vs 55.6%; P = .02), with no difference regarding consistency of clinical information provided by the medical team (64.8% vs 63.5%; P = 1.00). Families who report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making for critically ill patients may be more satisfied than those who do not with regard to specific aspects of ICU decision making. Further research would help understand how best to engage PCPs in shared decisions.

The Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Migraine in Primary Care.

Chronic migraine is common, affecting approximately 1% of the general population, and causes significant disability. To summarize optimal involvement of primary care physicians in chronic migraine care, and to provide algorithms to assist them in the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic migraine. An analysis of diagnostic and treatment needs in chronic migraine, based on a synthesis of the medical literature and clinical experience. Chronic migraine represents the more severe end of the migraine spectrum, usually arises out of previous episodic migraine, and is characterized by headache on 15 days a month or more. Importantly, the headache needs to meet migraine diagnostic criteria on only 8 days a month in order to meet chronic migraine diagnostic criteria. When acute medication overuse is present, a second diagnosis of medication overuse headache should be made. If patients meet criteria for chronic migraine, this excludes a diagnosis of chronic tension-type headache. Acute therapy of chronic migraine is similar to episodic migraine, except that medication overuse is a much greater risk in chronic migraine and must be addressed. All patients should be considered for pharmacological prophylaxis, and the behavioral aspects of therapy should be emphasized. The two prophylactic drugs with the best evidence for efficacy in chronic migraine are topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA. Given the disability caused by chronic migraine, these should both be available to patients as necessary. Management of chronic migraine is complex, and many patients are relatively refractory to therapy. Specialist referral will often be required and should not be unduly delayed. On the other hand, the primary care physician should be able to make the diagnosis, initiate therapy, and manage some less refractory patients without referral. The timing of referral should depend both on the expertise of the primary care physician in headache management and the patient's response to initial therapy.

Primary care physician involvement in shared decision making for neurocritically ill patients and family satisfaction with care (P3.168)

Primary care physician involvement in shared decision making for neurocritically ill patients and family satisfaction with care (P3.168)

Factors Related to Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Prescription by U.S. Primary Care Physicians.

Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) greatly reduces risk of HIV infection in HIV-negative individuals, use is not widespread enough to impact HIV incidence. Involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) in PrEP prescription is essential, but previous research has shown low rates of prescription among PCPs. To identify targets for interventions, the information-motivation-behavioral skills model for PrEP discussion and prescription was tested in a ten-city sample of PCPs. PCPs from ZIP codes with high HIV incidence in ten U.S. cities (N=280, 52% male, 56% white) completed a survey online between July 2014 and May 2015. Information items assessed knowledge, motivation items evaluated attitudes, and behavioral skills items measured comfort with behaviors involved in prescribing PrEP. Providers indicated whether they had discussed PrEP with or prescribed PrEP to patients. Data were analyzed in 2015 and 2016. One third of PCPs had discussed and 17% had prescribed PrEP. A structural equation model with good fit supported the information-motivation-behavioral skills model. Information and motivation predicted behavioral skills (b=0.35, 95% CI=0.13, 0.57; and b=0.31, 95% CI=0.14, 0.47, respectively). Behavioral skills predicted prescription (b=0.27, 95% CI=0.12, 0.42). Furthermore, behavioral skills mediated effects of information and motivation on prescription (b=0.10, 95% CI=0.03, 0.19; and b=0.08, 95% CI=0.03, 0.16, respectively). The information-motivation-behavioral skills model can be applied to PCPs' PrEP discussion and prescription. Its constructs represent potential targets for PCP-directed interventions to increase PrEP use in high-risk populations.

Assessing The Involvement of Primary Care Physicians in Patient’s Advance Care Planning (S807)

Assessing The Involvement of Primary Care Physicians in Patient’s Advance Care Planning (S807)

Regional Variation in Primary Care Involvement at the End of Life.

Variation in end-of-life care in the United States is frequently driven by the health care system. We assessed the association of primary care physician involvement at the end of life with end-of-life care patterns. We analyzed 2010 Medicare Part B claims data for US hospital referral regions (HRRs). The independent variable was the ratio of primary care physicians to specialist visits in the last 6 months of life. Dependent variables included the rate of hospital deaths, hospital and intensive care use in the last 6 months of life, percentage of patients seen by more than 10 physicians, and Medicare spending in the last 2 years of life. Robust linear regression analysis was used to measure the association of primary care physician involvement at the end of life with the outcome variables, adjusting for regional characteristics. We assessed 306 HRRs, capturing 1,107,702 Medicare Part B beneficiaries with chronic disease who died. The interquartile range of the HRR ratio of primary care to specialist end-of-life visits was 0.77 to 1.21. HRRs with high vs low primary care physician involvement at the end of life had significantly different patient, population, and health system characteristics. Adjusting for these differences, HRRs with the greatest primary care physician involvement had lower Medicare spending in the last 2 years of life ($65,160 vs $69,030; P = .003) and fewer intensive care unit days in the last 6 months of life (2.90 vs 4.29; P <.001), but also less hospice enrollment (44.5% of decedents vs 50.4%; P = .004). Regions with greater primary care physician involvement in end-of-life care have overall less intensive end-of-life care.

Involvement of Primary Care Physicians in the Decision Making and Care of Patients With Breast Cancer.

Purpose Collaborative care between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) may improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care. Yet, patient perspectives about how involved the PCPs were in their breast cancer care and treatment decisions remain unknown. Patients and Methods A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013 to 2014, as reported to the SEER registries in Los Angeles, California, and Georgia, were sent a survey approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,279, 71% response rate). The distributions of patient-perceived PCP quality (six questions about PCP access and awareness of values) and the following three measures of patient-reported PCP involvement were assessed: how informed the respondent felt her PCP was about her breast cancer (engagement); how often the respondent talked with her PCP (communication); and how often the respondent felt the PCP participated in treatment decisions (participation). Adjusted mean scores of patient-reported satisfaction with and deliberation about the surgical treatment decision were then compared across levels of PCP engagement, communication, and participation using multivariable linear regression. Results The majority of women in this sample perceived high PCP quality (63.6%), high PCP breast cancer engagement (66.2%), and high PCP communication (69.1%). More than a third of women (35.4%) reported that their PCP participated in their treatment decisions. Higher PCP engagement was associated with higher decision satisfaction when compared with low PCP engagement (adjusted P = .003). Conclusion Patient perceptions of PCP quality and PCP involvement in breast cancer care during treatment are high for most women, and PCPs often participate in breast cancer treatment decisions. However, PCP involvement did not lead to meaningful improvements in patients' appraisals of their decision making.

신체활동 현황과 국가수준의 정책 제안

Objectives: The prevalence of insufficient physical activity is relatively high in the Republic of Korea and it is increasing. The national strategies to improve physical activity are essential and are suggested in this paper. Methods: National level of physical activity is compared globally by WHO statistics. Korean National Health and Nutrition Survey showed the level of physical activity. National strategies to improve physical activity were suggested referring to the other countries' strategies, public health books and Health Plan 2020. Results: Prevalence of insufficient aerobic exercise in 2010 were 33.4%, 94.8% in over and 18 years old, 11~17 years old, respectively. And it is increasing. Sufficient exercise to fit the national guidelines of physical activity were done by 15.6% of Korean older and 19 years old. Prevalence of insufficient physical activity was high in the elderly, female, adolescent, rural area and lower income. The national spread of the physical activity guidelines, primary care physicians involvement, supports for the physical activity programs, development of the evaluation protocol for the programs and environmental supports are suggested. Conclusions: The government induced various efforts to improve the level of physical activity is needed urgently.

Challenges of the Pandemic Response in Primary Care during Pre-Vaccination Period: A Qualitative Study.

BackgroundDuring the 2009/A/H1N1 pandemic, the main burden of the patient management fell on primary care physicians (PCPs), and they were the principal implementers of pandemic policies. Broad involvement of PCPs in the pandemic response offered an excellent opportunity to investigate the challenges that they encountered.ObjectiveTo examine challenges faced by PCPs as they implemented pandemic policies in Australia, Israel and England before the 2009/A/H1N1 pandemic vaccine became available.MethodsThis is a qualitative descriptive study that employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with 65 PCPs from Australia, Israel and England. The data were analysed thematically to provide a detailed account of the themes.ResultsChallenges in three fields of the pandemic response were identified. (i) Consultation of patients was challenged by the high flow of patients, sick and worried-well, the necessity to provide personalised information about the disease during consultations, and unfamiliar antiviral treatment. (ii) Performance of public health responsibilities was complicated in regards to patient segregation and introduction of personal protection measures. (iii) Communication with the health authorities was inefficient, with no established route to provide feedback about the pandemic policies.ConclusionsThe experience of the 2009/A/H1N1 pandemic highlighted the centrality of primary care in the pandemic response. Despite intensive pre-pandemic planning, numerous barriers for implementation of the pandemic policies in primary care were identified. Investigation of three different approaches for involvement of PCPs in the pandemic management showed that none of these approaches worked smoothly.

Voices of Multi-ethnic Providers in NYC: Health Care for Viral Hepatitis to Prevent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths and the ninth in the US. Hepatitis B and C make up almost 80% of HCC cases. Based on our Hepatitis Outreach Network screening program data, approximately 40% of at-risk foreign-born community members who tested positive for viral hepatitis B and/or C did not follow up for additional care. Our aim was to use theory-driven qualitative research to identify barriers and facilitators to follow-up after viral hepatitis diagnosis among these community members from the viewpoint of primary care providers (PCPs). As viral hepatitis is a precursor of liver cancer, timely treatment of the virus has the potential to reduce the incidence and burden of liver cancer. We performed semi-structured key informant interviews with 20 primary care physicians who predominantly serve Korean, Chinese, Egyptian, and Russian communities. Barriers detected included cultural factors commonly seen amongst immigrant populations such as busy work schedules and non-English language. Common facilitators include increased primary care physician involvement and linkages to care within communities in which patients reside. Providers perceived that they are gatekeepers to specialty care for their patients and therefore key persons to engage in viral hepatitis evaluation and management by specialists. This initial study suggests that re-focusing energy into primary care physicians might offer promise for improved care for individuals from immigrant communities who have viral hepatitis to help them engage in care and thereby reduce the burden of liver cancer.

Quality cancer-survivorship care: Receipt of guideline-recommended cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care among healthy cancer survivors in the United States.

108 Background: Improving cancer survivorship care is a high priority research area. CVD is a major cause of mortality in cancer survivors. Preventive care reduces CVD mortality and is part of guideline recommended care for all individuals. We examined receipt of CVD preventive measures among healthy cancer survivors compared to the non-cancer population using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Methods: NHIS is a population-based, annual survey designed to provide data representative of the health care received by the U.S. population. For this analysis, 1,860 survivors without CVD risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia) were matched to 7,393 controls without CVD risk factors based on age, race, gender, and survey year. Multivariate logistic regression models examined factors associated with receipt of each preventive measure. Results: Cancer survivors were more likely than controls to visit a general doctor and a specialist during the past year (Table). Further, survivors were more likely to have received CVD preventive care (blood pressure and cholesterol check) and undergone behavior modification (tobacco cessation and exercise). Survivors &gt; 5 years versus &lt; 2 years from diagnosis were no better in CVD preventive measures, except slightly higher rate of exercise (51 vs. 48%, p &lt; 0.001). On multivariate analysis, general doctor visitation was associated with receipt of blood pressure check (OR 7.0), cholesterol check (OR 2.9), smoking cessation attempt (OR 1.4) and exercise (OR 1.3); survivors vs. control were no different in CVD preventive care. Conclusions: Care by a general doctor improves receipt of CVD preventive measures for cancer survivors and non-cancer individuals alike. This study supports the integral involvement of primary care physicians in a “shared care model” for the delivery of quality cancer survivorship care. [Table: see text]

Primary care physician communication at hospital discharge reduces medication discrepancies

Medication discrepancies are common as patients transition from hospital to home. Errors with post-discharge medication regimens may play a role in hospital readmissions. To determine whether primary care physician (PCP) contact with patients at hospital discharge impacts the frequency of medication discrepancies at 24 hours post-discharge. With the PCP-Enhanced Discharge Communication Intervention, PCPs were asked to speak with treating hospitalists and contact patients within 24 hours of hospital discharge (either in person or by phone) to discuss any hospital medication changes. Research staff enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and telephoned subjects 48 hours post-discharge to determine medication discrepancies and PCP contact. One hundred fourteen community-dwelling adults, admitted to acute medicine services >24 hours on ≥ 5 medications. Of the 114 subjects enrolled in the hospital, 75 subjects completed 48 hours postdischarge phone interviews. Of the 75 study patients, 39 patients (50.6%) experienced a total of 84 medication discrepancies (mean, 2.1 discrepancies/patient). Subjects who were contacted by their PCP at discharge were 70% less likely to have a discrepancy when compared with those not contacted (P = 0.04). Males were 4.34 times more likely to have a discrepancy (P = 0.02). PCP communication with patients within 24 hours of discharge was associated with decreased medication discrepancies. Our results further demonstrate the importance of PCP involvement in the hospital discharge process.

The Future is Here

Change is the only constant in health care; and with change comes uncertainty, anticipation and trepidations. The adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is undoubtedly the most sweeping health care law passed by Congress since the creation of Medicare in 1965. The ACA is ushering in fundamental transformation that is likely to change the landscape of healthcare delivery in the U.S. It is very likely that the implementation of the ACA provisions will have signifi cant unintended and unforeseen consequences for medical professionals, patients, insurers and businesses. 1 Despite this uncertainty, it is clear that the ACA will shift the emphasis toward improving the outcome of care and reducing costs, perhaps by focusing on integration of care among providers and across care settings. Within this broad context of change, the fiof sleep medicine is undergoing its own radical transformation. Sleep medicine is no longer a specialty about a single disease, a single test, or a single device; instead, sleep medicine professionals provide care transcending organ based specialties, caring for one third of human life, a critical third that has direct impact on every aspect of health. The challenge before us is to develop care models that meet three aims: optimal patient experience, including quality and satisfaction; improving the health of population; and decreasing the cost of care. What are the key themes that are likely to infl uence the practice of sleep medicine in the new era of health care reform? I will highlight several areas that require our attention in the coming year.

Influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1 management policies in primary care: a comparative analysis of three countries

During the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1, the main burden of managing patients fell on primary care physicians (PCP). This provided an excellent opportunity to investigate the implications of pandemic policies for the PCP role. To examine policies affecting the role of PCP in the pandemic response in Australia (in the state of Victoria), Israel and England. Content analysis of the documents published by the health authorities in Australia, Israel and England during the pandemic 2009/A/H1N1. The involvement of PCP in the pandemic response differed among the countries in timing and allocated responsibilities. The Israeli approach during the containment phase was to maximise the protection of PCP at the expense of putting pressure on hospitals where the suspected cases were tested and treated. In Australia and England, PCP managed the suspected patients from the beginning of the pandemic. The work of PCP in England was supported by the introduction of the National Pandemic Flu Service during the mitigation phase, whereas Australian PCP had no additional support structures and their role was constant and intensive throughout the pandemic period. Health authorities need to engage with representatives of PCP to evaluate policies for pandemic planning and management. Adequate support and protection for PCP during different stages of pandemic management should be provided. What is known about the topic? During the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1, the main burden of diagnosing and managing the patients fell on PCP. The prominent role of PCP in the 2009/A/H1N1 pandemic presents an excellent opportunity to investigate implications of pandemic policies for primary care and to tackle the possible problems that these policies may impose on the ability of PCP to effectively participate in the public health response. What does this paper add? This paper examines policies that affected the roles of PCP in managing the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1 in three countries: Australia, Israel and England. Although general evaluations of the pandemic response in different countries have previously been reported, this is the first study that focuses on policies for pandemic management at the primary care level. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners (PCP and primary care workers in general) would benefit if pandemic preparedness plans were constructed to provide an adequate system of support and protection to primary care workers during different stages of pandemic management. For policy makers, this analysis may help to overhaul the strategies for primary care engagement in the pandemic response.

Patient, Primary Care Physician and Specialist Expectations of Primary Care Physician Involvement in Cancer Care

In Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients' cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care. To compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer. Canadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialists A total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients' care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care. Most specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission. Lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.