Background General practitioners (GPs) are responsible for managing chronic care in the growing population of patients with comorbid chronic conditions and cancer. Studies have shown, however, that cancer patients are less likely to receive appropriate chronic care compared to patients without cancer. Patients say that how GPs engage in the care of comorbidities influences their own priority of these conditions. No studies have explored GPs’ attitudes to and prioritization of chronic care in patients who have completed primary cancer treatment. This study aims to explore GPs’ experiences, prioritization of, and perspectives on treatment and follow-up of patients with cancer and comorbidity. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2016 with 13 GPs in Region Zealand in Denmark. We used Systematic Text Condensation in the analysis. Results All participating GPs said that chronic care in patients with a history of cancer was a high priority, and due to a clear structure in their practice, they experienced that few patients were lost to follow-up. Two different approaches to chronic care consultations were identified: one group of GPs described them as imitating outpatient clinics, where the GP sets the agenda and focuses on the chronic condition. The other group described an approach that was more attuned to the patient’s agenda, which could mean that chronic care consultations served as an “alibi” for the patients to disclose other matters of concern. Both groups of GPs said that chronic care consultations for these patients supported normalcy , but in different ways. Some GPs said that offering future appointments in the chronic care process gave patients hope and a sense of normalcy. Other GPs strove for normalcy by focusing exclusively on the chronic condition and dealing with cancer as cured. Conclusions The participating GPs gave a high priority to chronic care in patients with a history of cancer. Some GPs, however, followed a rigorous agenda. GPs should be aware that a very focused and biomedical approach to chronic care might increase fragmentation of care and collide with a holistic and patient-centered approach. It could also affect GPs’ self-perception of their role and the core values of general practice.

Objectives Due to a growing population with both cancer and chronic diseases, we explored patients’ experiences of living with a cancer diagnosis and comorbidities, the possible effects on everyday living and management of comorbidities. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2016 with 15 patients in Denmark, with finished cancer treatment and preexisting comorbidities. Analysis was performed by Systematic Text Condensation. Results Symptoms which disrupted everyday function were given attention, regardless of the disease from which the symptoms originated. The awareness of cancer and comorbidities constituted an inverse process over time. Most patients perceived cancer as being transient, whereas experiences of comorbidities varied from ignorance to worry. Most patients reported maintaining their chronic illness consultations with their general practitioner as before cancer. Conclusion Patients prioritized an everyday life with normal chores highly in contrast to paying attention to diseases. Disruptive symptoms, rather than specific diseases, took up patients’ attention. Cancer did not change the patients’ attendance at chronic care consultations. General practitioners should focus on maintaining the patient’s functional level in everyday life. Further, they should continue to prioritize the chronic care management, as this might increase the patients’ own view of the importance of self-management.

Background In 2018, the concept of clusters was introduced as a new model for data-driven quality improvement in general practice in Denmark. However, there is little research on the development and implementation of general practice clusters. The study explores how the cluster coordinators responsible for leading the clusters forward enacted and experienced their role during the early years of the clusters with attention to the challenges and enablers perceived in the process. Methods Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 25 cluster coordinators from clusters that had carried out at least two meetings on a specific professional topic. The coordinators represented clusters of varying sizes and different geographic locations. Key topics in the interview guide were the development and structure of the cluster, the role of the coordinator, obtainment of data for the meetings, the role of external support, the form and content of the meetings, the participation and engagement of the members. A thematic analysis – shaped by the original aims and categories of the study while also being open to emerging themes – was performed on the transcribed interview material. Results Important enablers in the process of developing the clusters included the positive engagement of the GPs, the support offered by regional quality units and a national quality organisation for general practice, and the funding provided by the formal cluster framework. Challenges initially included setting up the clusters administratively and translating the open cluster concept into a local, workable model; and later obtaining relevant data for the cluster meetings and facilitating peer discussions about the data. Conclusion The coordinators generally experienced that the development of the clusters had progressed relatively fast with engagement from most of the participating GPs. Still, challenges with data obtainment, data analysis, and facilitation will have to be addressed ongoingly. Future research should investigate learning processes at the cluster meetings and how the clusters impact clinical practice and collaborative relations between general practice and other health care providers.