Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals
Objective Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teachi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of cancer care 2021-11, Vol.30 (6), p.e13505-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e13505 |
| container_title | European journal of cancer care |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Ankersmid, Jet W. Hoeve, Jolanda C. Strobbe, Luc J. A. Riet, Yvonne E. A. Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F. Siesling, Sabine Drossaert, Constance H. C. |
| description | Objective
Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs.
Methods
Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.
Results
Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.
Conclusions
Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ecc.13505 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9285965</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2566040362</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4205-92939d84f81a3b540d13bd85f39099fbbb2b16d6c3dd5fe21564c610e0ed65383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1rFTEUhoMo9np14T8IuFFw2nwzcSGUS6tCwY26Dfk405syMxmTTEt3btz7G_0lpt4iKJjNIZwnD-fkReg5Jce0nRPw_phySeQDtKFcyY5xKR6iDdGKdlIwfoSelHJFCOVUi8foiAshNCV8g76fp3FMNz-__VgXbIcKGbsMtlTs7ewhv8FfbI62xjSX19hBayzZ-ho9tLudA07LknJd51gjFDykjOO05HQNE8wVW-9TDnG-xDXhPdix7ps5Q7OkAUppXjuWp-jR0Ao8u69b9Pn87NPufXfx8d2H3elF5wUjstNMcx16MfTUcicFCZS70MuBa6L14JxjjqqgPA9BDsCoVMIrSoBAUJL3fIveHrzL6iYIvk2Y7WiWHCebb02y0fzdmePeXKZro1kvdVNs0ct7QU5f1_YbZorFwzjaGdJaDJNKEUG4Yg198Q96ldZ8t22jtGwxCa0a9epA-ZxKyTD8GYYScxeuaeGa3-E29uTA3sQRbv8PmrPd7vDiF2Uhp_w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2595365496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Ankersmid, Jet W. ; Hoeve, Jolanda C. ; Strobbe, Luc J. A. ; Riet, Yvonne E. A. ; Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F. ; Siesling, Sabine ; Drossaert, Constance H. C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ankersmid, Jet W. ; Hoeve, Jolanda C. ; Strobbe, Luc J. A. ; Riet, Yvonne E. A. ; Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F. ; Siesling, Sabine ; Drossaert, Constance H. C. ; the Santeon VBHC Breast Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs.
Methods
Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.
Results
Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.
Conclusions
Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0961-5423</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2354</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13505</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34449103</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Hindawi Limited</publisher><subject>aftercare ; Best practice ; Breast cancer ; care pathways ; Continuity of care ; Decision making ; follow‐up ; Health care ; Hospitals ; Original ; Patients ; personalised care ; Rehabilitation ; Surveillance ; Survivor ; survivorship care ; Variation</subject><ispartof>European journal of cancer care, 2021-11, Vol.30 (6), p.e13505-n/a</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4205-92939d84f81a3b540d13bd85f39099fbbb2b16d6c3dd5fe21564c610e0ed65383</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4205-92939d84f81a3b540d13bd85f39099fbbb2b16d6c3dd5fe21564c610e0ed65383</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4562-8147 ; 0000-0002-3898-416X ; 0000-0003-3133-6212 ; 0000-0002-0273-824X ; 0000-0002-7083-3169 ; 0000-0002-4465-5768 ; 0000-0002-3840-3003</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fecc.13505$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fecc.13505$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ankersmid, Jet W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeve, Jolanda C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, Luc J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riet, Yvonne E. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siesling, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drossaert, Constance H. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the Santeon VBHC Breast Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><title>Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals</title><title>European journal of cancer care</title><description>Objective
Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs.
Methods
Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.
Results
Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.
Conclusions
Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.</description><subject>aftercare</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>care pathways</subject><subject>Continuity of care</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>follow‐up</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>personalised care</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Survivor</subject><subject>survivorship care</subject><subject>Variation</subject><issn>0961-5423</issn><issn>1365-2354</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1rFTEUhoMo9np14T8IuFFw2nwzcSGUS6tCwY26Dfk405syMxmTTEt3btz7G_0lpt4iKJjNIZwnD-fkReg5Jce0nRPw_phySeQDtKFcyY5xKR6iDdGKdlIwfoSelHJFCOVUi8foiAshNCV8g76fp3FMNz-__VgXbIcKGbsMtlTs7ewhv8FfbI62xjSX19hBayzZ-ho9tLudA07LknJd51gjFDykjOO05HQNE8wVW-9TDnG-xDXhPdix7ps5Q7OkAUppXjuWp-jR0Ao8u69b9Pn87NPufXfx8d2H3elF5wUjstNMcx16MfTUcicFCZS70MuBa6L14JxjjqqgPA9BDsCoVMIrSoBAUJL3fIveHrzL6iYIvk2Y7WiWHCebb02y0fzdmePeXKZro1kvdVNs0ct7QU5f1_YbZorFwzjaGdJaDJNKEUG4Yg198Q96ldZ8t22jtGwxCa0a9epA-ZxKyTD8GYYScxeuaeGa3-E29uTA3sQRbv8PmrPd7vDiF2Uhp_w</recordid><startdate>202111</startdate><enddate>202111</enddate><creator>Ankersmid, Jet W.</creator><creator>Hoeve, Jolanda C.</creator><creator>Strobbe, Luc J. A.</creator><creator>Riet, Yvonne E. A.</creator><creator>Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F.</creator><creator>Siesling, Sabine</creator><creator>Drossaert, Constance H. C.</creator><general>Hindawi Limited</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4562-8147</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3898-416X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3133-6212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-824X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7083-3169</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4465-5768</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-3003</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202111</creationdate><title>Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals</title><author>Ankersmid, Jet W. ; Hoeve, Jolanda C. ; Strobbe, Luc J. A. ; Riet, Yvonne E. A. ; Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F. ; Siesling, Sabine ; Drossaert, Constance H. C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4205-92939d84f81a3b540d13bd85f39099fbbb2b16d6c3dd5fe21564c610e0ed65383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>aftercare</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>care pathways</topic><topic>Continuity of care</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>follow‐up</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>personalised care</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Survivor</topic><topic>survivorship care</topic><topic>Variation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ankersmid, Jet W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeve, Jolanda C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, Luc J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riet, Yvonne E. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siesling, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drossaert, Constance H. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>the Santeon VBHC Breast Cancer Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European journal of cancer care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ankersmid, Jet W.</au><au>Hoeve, Jolanda C.</au><au>Strobbe, Luc J. A.</au><au>Riet, Yvonne E. A.</au><au>Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F.</au><au>Siesling, Sabine</au><au>Drossaert, Constance H. C.</au><aucorp>the Santeon VBHC Breast Cancer Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals</atitle><jtitle>European journal of cancer care</jtitle><date>2021-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e13505</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13505-n/a</pages><issn>0961-5423</issn><eissn>1365-2354</eissn><abstract>Objective
Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs.
Methods
Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.
Results
Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.
Conclusions
Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Hindawi Limited</pub><pmid>34449103</pmid><doi>10.1111/ecc.13505</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4562-8147</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3898-416X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3133-6212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-824X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7083-3169</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4465-5768</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-3003</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0961-5423 |
| ispartof | European journal of cancer care, 2021-11, Vol.30 (6), p.e13505-n/a |
| issn | 0961-5423 1365-2354 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9285965 |
| source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | aftercare Best practice Breast cancer care pathways Continuity of care Decision making follow‐up Health care Hospitals Original Patients personalised care Rehabilitation Surveillance Survivor survivorship care Variation |
| title | Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T20%3A26%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Follow%E2%80%90up%20after%20breast%20cancer:%20Variations,%20best%20practices,%20and%20opportunities%20for%20improvement%20according%20to%20health%20care%20professionals&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20cancer%20care&rft.au=Ankersmid,%20Jet%20W.&rft.aucorp=the%20Santeon%20VBHC%20Breast%20Cancer%20Group&rft.date=2021-11&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e13505&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13505-n/a&rft.issn=0961-5423&rft.eissn=1365-2354&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ecc.13505&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2566040362%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2595365496&rft_id=info:pmid/34449103&rfr_iscdi=true |