Cargando…

Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of ref...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pascoe, Shane W, Veitch, Craig, Crossland, Lisa J, Beilby, Justin J, Spigelman, Allan, Stubbs, John, Harris, Mark F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3765755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-124
_version_ 1782283383448010752
author Pascoe, Shane W
Veitch, Craig
Crossland, Lisa J
Beilby, Justin J
Spigelman, Allan
Stubbs, John
Harris, Mark F
author_facet Pascoe, Shane W
Veitch, Craig
Crossland, Lisa J
Beilby, Justin J
Spigelman, Allan
Stubbs, John
Harris, Mark F
author_sort Pascoe, Shane W
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Outcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of referral for colorectal cancer treatment following diagnosis; the aim was to improve our understanding of the referral pathway and guide the development of future interventions. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used, recruiting 29 patients representing urban and rural areas from 3 Australian states who participated in 4 focus groups. Seven patients provided individual interviews to supplement the data. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, data was coded with NVivo software and analysed thematically before deductive analysis. RESULTS: Four aspects of the referral process were identified by patients, namely detection/diagnosis, referral for initial treatment/specialist care, the roles of the GP/specialist, and the patient’s perceived involvement in the process. The referral process was characterised by a lack of patient involvement, with few examples of shared decision-making and few examples of limited choice. However, patients did not always feel they had the knowledge to make informed decisions. Information exchange was highly valued by patients when it occurred, and it increased their satisfaction with the process. Other factors mediating care included the use of the public versus private health system, the quality of information exchange (GP to specialist and GP to patient), continuity of care between GP and specialist, and the extent of information provision when patients moved between specialist and GP care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described poor GP continuity, ad hoc organisational systems and limited information exchange, at both interpersonal and inter-organisational levels, all leading to sub-optimal care. Implementation of a system of information feedback to GPs and engagement with them might improve information exchange for patients, enabling them to be more involved in improved referral outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3765755
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37657552013-09-08 Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer Pascoe, Shane W Veitch, Craig Crossland, Lisa J Beilby, Justin J Spigelman, Allan Stubbs, John Harris, Mark F BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Outcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of referral for colorectal cancer treatment following diagnosis; the aim was to improve our understanding of the referral pathway and guide the development of future interventions. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used, recruiting 29 patients representing urban and rural areas from 3 Australian states who participated in 4 focus groups. Seven patients provided individual interviews to supplement the data. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, data was coded with NVivo software and analysed thematically before deductive analysis. RESULTS: Four aspects of the referral process were identified by patients, namely detection/diagnosis, referral for initial treatment/specialist care, the roles of the GP/specialist, and the patient’s perceived involvement in the process. The referral process was characterised by a lack of patient involvement, with few examples of shared decision-making and few examples of limited choice. However, patients did not always feel they had the knowledge to make informed decisions. Information exchange was highly valued by patients when it occurred, and it increased their satisfaction with the process. Other factors mediating care included the use of the public versus private health system, the quality of information exchange (GP to specialist and GP to patient), continuity of care between GP and specialist, and the extent of information provision when patients moved between specialist and GP care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described poor GP continuity, ad hoc organisational systems and limited information exchange, at both interpersonal and inter-organisational levels, all leading to sub-optimal care. Implementation of a system of information feedback to GPs and engagement with them might improve information exchange for patients, enabling them to be more involved in improved referral outcomes. BioMed Central 2013-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3765755/ /pubmed/23972115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-124 Text en Copyright © 2013 Pascoe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pascoe, Shane W
Veitch, Craig
Crossland, Lisa J
Beilby, Justin J
Spigelman, Allan
Stubbs, John
Harris, Mark F
Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title_full Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title_fullStr Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title_short Patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
title_sort patients’ experiences of referral for colorectal cancer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3765755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-124
work_keys_str_mv AT pascoeshanew patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT veitchcraig patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT crosslandlisaj patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT beilbyjustinj patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT spigelmanallan patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT stubbsjohn patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer
AT harrismarkf patientsexperiencesofreferralforcolorectalcancer