Exploring health care professionals views on alternative approaches to cancer follow-up and barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Recovery Package

Williamson, Susan orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-9635-4473, Beaver, Kinta orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-6552-2323 and Langton, Stephen (2020) Exploring health care professionals views on alternative approaches to cancer follow-up and barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Recovery Package. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 46 (10175). ISSN 1462-3889

[thumbnail of Author Accepted Manuscript]
Preview
PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript) - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

266kB
[thumbnail of Supplementary Material]
Preview
PDF (Supplementary Material) - Supplemental Material
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

76kB

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101759

Abstract

Purpose
To meet the long-term needs of cancer survivors the focus of recent cancer care reform in the United Kingdom (UK) has been the implementation of alternative follow-up strategies to relieve the growing pressures threatening to overwhelm cancer services. In 2013, the UK's National Cancer Survivorship Initiative recommended an integrated package of care called the Recovery Package to meet cancer survivors' psychosocial and information needs and supported self-management.

Method
We aimed to explore health care professionals’ views of alternative strategies for follow-up care, and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of the Recovery Package for patients who had completed treatment for cancer. Semi-structured interviews with 19 participants sought views and experiences of key aspects of cancer care follow-up and aspects of the Recovery Package implementation.

Results
Seven themes emerged from the data; sustainability and capacity, cost implications, primary care, self-management, recovery package, resistance to change, and visions for the future. Traditional hospital follow-up was considered suitable for patients with complex needs, rarer forms of cancer and/or a poorer prognosis. Risk stratification was considered a vital element of any future strategy as was interoperability of digital communication systems between health care providers. Charitable funding had enabled one site to introduce all elements of the recovery package for patients with common cancers.

Conclusion
Charitable funding had enabled implementation of elements of the Recovery Package. However, new approaches require services to be commissioned and funded appropriately with effective communication between patients and primary and secondary care facilitated by interoperability of health care records.


Repository Staff Only: item control page