Effects of structured involvement of the primary care team versus standard care after a cancer diagnosis on patient satisfaction and healthcare use: the GRIP randomised controlled trial

• Published in: BMC family practice 2022-06, Vol.23 (1), p.145-145, Article 145
• Main Authors: Perfors, I A A, Helsper, C W, Noteboom, E A, Visserman, E A, van Dorst, E B L, van Dalen, T, Verhagen, M A M T, Witkamp, A J, Koelemij, R, Flinterman, A E, Pruissen-Peeters, K A B M, Schramel, F M N H, van Rens, M T M, Ernst, M F, Moons, L M G, van der Wall, E, de Wit, N J, May, A M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Breast cancer; Cancer; Cancer patients; Cancer therapies; Care and treatment; Chronic illnesses; Colorectal cancer; Consent; Cooperation; Decision making; Diagnosis; Evaluation; General practitioners; Health care reform; Health services utilization; Home care; Hospitals; Integrated delivery systems; Medical diagnosis; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Melanoma; Mental health; Nurses; Oncology; Patient satisfaction; Primary care; Primary health care; Quality of life; Questionnaires
• ISSN: 2731-4553; 2731-4553; 1471-2296
• DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01746-3

The growing number of cancer survivors and treatment possibilities call for more personalised and integrated cancer care. Primary care seems well positioned to support this. We aimed to assess the effects of structured follow-up of a primary care team after a cancer diagnosis. We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial enrolling patients curatively treated for breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic cancer or melanoma. In addition to usual cancer care in the control group, patients randomized to intervention were offered a "Time Out consultation" (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP) after diagnosis, and subsequent follow-up during and after treatment by a home care oncology nurse (HON). Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire: EORTC-INPATSAT-32) and healthcare utilisation. Intention-to-treat linear mixed regression analyses were used for satisfaction with care and other continuous outcome variables. The difference in healthcare utilisation for categorical data was calculated with a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher exact test and count data (none versus any) with a log-binomial regression. We included 154 patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) who were mostly female (75%), mainly diagnosed with breast cancer (51%), and had a mean age of 61 (SD ± 11.9) years. 81% of the intervention patients had a TOC and 68% had HON contact. Satisfaction with care was high (8 out of 10) in both study groups. At 3 months after treatment, GP satisfaction was significantly lower in the intervention group on 3 of 6 subscales, i.e., quality (- 14.2 (95%CI -27.0;-1.3)), availability (- 15,9 (- 29.1;-2.6)) and information provision (- 15.2 (- 29.1;-1.4)). Patients in the intervention group visited the GP practice and the emergency department more often ((RR 1.3 (1.0;1.7) and 1.70 (1.0;2.8)), respectively). In conclusion, the GRIP intervention, which was designed to involve the primary care team during and after cancer treatment, increased the number of primary healthcare contacts. However, it did not improve patient satisfaction with care and it increased emergency department visits. As the high uptake of the intervention suggests a need of patients, future research should focus on optimizing the design and implementation of the intervention. GRIP is retrospectively (21/06/2016) registered in the 'Netherlands Trial Register' (NTR5909).