Purpose: An Institute of Medicine report recommends that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). The trial objective was to determine if an SCP for breast cancer survivors improves patient-reported outcomes. Patients and Methods: Women with early-stage breast cancer who completed primary treatment at least 3 months previously were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated within two strata: less than 24 months and ≥ 24 months since diagnosis. All patients were transferred to their own primary care physician (PCP) for follow-up. In addition to a discharge visit, the intervention group received an SCP, which was reviewed during a 30-minute educational session with a nurse, and their PCP received the SCP and guideline on follow-up. The primary outcome was cancer-related distress at 12 months, assessed by the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, continuity/coordination of care, and health service measures. Results: Overall, 408 survivors were enrolled through nine tertiary cancer centers. There were no differences between groups on cancer-related distress or on any of the patient-reported secondary outcomes, and there were no differences when the two strata were analyzed separately. More patients in the intervention than control group correctly identify their PCP as primarily responsible for follow-up (98.7% v 89.1%; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.9; P = .005). Conclusion: The results do not support the hypothesis that SCPs are beneficial for improving patient-reported outcomes. Transferring follow-up to PCPs is considered an important strategy to meet the demand for scarce oncology resources. SCPs were no better than a standard discharge visit with the oncologist to facilitate transfer.

This study shows substantial variation in adherence to guideline recommendations, with both overuse and underuse of surveillance visits and tests.

Primary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.

BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. We collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation. The following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics—complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting—perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients’ needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners—interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting—the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process—planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork. The implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

The implementation of innovations (i.e., new tools and practices) in healthcare organizations remains a significant challenge. The objective of this study was to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system level factors that influenced the implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools in three specific areas of cancer care. Using case study methodology, we studied three cases in Nova Scotia, Canada, wherein synoptic reporting tools were implemented within clinical departments/programs. Synoptic reporting tools capture and present information about a medical or surgical procedure in a structured, checklist-like format and typically report only items critical for understanding the disease and subsequent impacts on patient care. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants, document analysis, nonparticipant observation, and tool use/examination. Analysis involved production of case histories, in-depth analysis of each case, and a cross-case analysis. Numerous techniques were used during the research design, data collection, and data analysis stages to increase the rigour of this study. The analysis revealed five common factors that were particularly influential to implementation and use of synoptic reporting tools across the three cases: stakeholder involvement, managing the change process (e.g., building demand, communication, training and support), champions and respected colleagues, administrative and managerial support, and innovation attributes (e.g., complexity, compatibility with interests and values). The direction of influence (facilitating or impeding) of each of these factors differed across and within cases. The findings demonstrate the importance of a multi-level contextual analysis to gaining both breadth and depth to our understanding of innovation implementation and use in health care. They also provide new insights into several important issues under-reported in the literature on moving innovations into healthcare practice, including the role of middle managers in implementation efforts and the importance of attending to the interpersonal aspects of implementation.

In Canada, clinical practice guidelines recommend breast cancer screening, but there are gaps in adherence to recommendations for screening, particularly among certain hard-to-reach populations, that may differ by province. We compared stage of diagnosis, proportion of screen-detected breast cancers, and length of diagnostic interval for immigrant women versus long-term residents of BC and Ontario. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases in BC and Ontario. We identified all women residing in either province who were diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2011, and determined who was foreign-born using the Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada database. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to describe the sample and study outcomes. We conducted multivariate analyses (modified Poisson regression and quantile regression) to control for potential confounders. There were 14,198 BC women and 46,952 Ontario women included in the study population, of which 11.8 and 11.7% were foreign-born respectively. In both provinces, immigrants and long-term residents had similar primary care access. In both provinces, immigrant women were significantly less likely to have a screen-detected breast cancer (adjusted relative risk 0.88 [0.79–0.96] in BC, 0.88 [0.84–0.93] in Ontario) and had a significantly longer median diagnostic interval (2 [0.2–3.8] days in BC, 5.5 [4.4–6.6] days in Ontario) than long-term residents. Women from East Asia and the Pacific were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer and had a longer diagnostic interval, but were diagnosed at an earlier stage than long-term residents. In Ontario, women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia were less likely to have a screen-detected cancer, had a longer median diagnostic interval, and were diagnosed at a later stage than long-term residents. These findings were not explained by access to primary care. There are inequalities in breast cancer diagnosis for Canadian immigrant women. We have identified particular immigrant groups (women from Latin America and the Caribbean and from South Asia) that appear to be subject to disparities in the diagnostic process that need to be addressed in order to effectively reduce gaps in care.