What patients with lung cancer with comorbidity tell us about interprofessional collaborative care across healthcare sectors: qualitative interview study

Abstract

BackgroundPatients with lung cancer with comorbidity often require treatment and care by different health professionals, in different settings and at different points in time during the course of the disease. In order to organise and coordinate healthcare efficiently, effective information exchange and collaboration between all involved care providers are required. The aim of this study was to assess the views of patients with advanced lung cancer with comorbidity regarding coordination of treatment and care across healthcare sectors.MethodsThis qualitative study, as part of the main study, The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach, used face-to-face guide-based semistructured interviews with patients with advanced lung cancer and their informal caregivers to explore cross-sectoral information exchange and collaboration in Germany. All generated data were audio-recorded, pseudonymised and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed using qualitative content analysis to structure data into themes and subthemes. All data were managed and organised in MAXQDA.ResultsIn 15 interviews, participants reported that cross-sectoral collaboration functioned well, if treatments occurred as planned. However, treatment gaps were experienced, especially regarding medication and regimen. As a result, participants felt insecure and obliged to take responsibility for the coordination of healthcare. Patients reported to be in favour of an active patient role but felt that healthcare coordination should still be a responsibility of a care provider. A more intensive information exchange, potentially by using an electronic platform, was expected to strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration.ConclusionPatients with lung cancer are uncertain about their role in the coordination of treatment and care across healthcare sectors. Healthcare providers should be more aware of care recipients’ willingness of taking on a more active role in healthcare coordination.Trial registration numberDRKS00013469.

What do people with lung cancer and stroke expect from patient navigation? A qualitative study in Germany

“… 46 A qualitative study from Germany showed that patients with LC were uncertain about their role in the coordination of care across healthcare sectors and that they wished to have someone as a coordinator in the treatment process. 47 This latter finding is in line with our results, where participants expressed the desire for a consistent contact person who would have time for them, and who would be available along their entire care trajectory. Previous studies have reported that patients with stroke are often unaware of the benefits and services available to them and whether or not they can access services again after they have been discharged; patients furthermore reported struggling with bureaucratic procedures related to obtaining health and social services.…”

Pan-cancer analyses of the associations between 109 pre-existing conditions and cancer treatment patterns across 19 adult cancers

“…Patients may be offered a more active role in healthcare coordination. By keeping patients informed of their status, it could facilitate information flow between all providers of care [54]. S6.…”

A comparison of the effect of time-to-treatment on survival according to economic status of lung cancer patients with chronic diseases

“…In fact, comorbidity has been established as a signi cant predictor of poor prognosis in cancer, with studies presenting an association between severity of comorbidity and lung cancer mortality [30]. Although provision of optimal care for lung cancer patients with comorbid diseases may be comparatively challenging because such individuals generally require multimodal treatment by several healthcare professionals, the ndings stress the importance of providing timely care to lung cancer patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia who also have a high level of comorbidities [31]. Apart from comorbidity, the impact of time-to-treatment on patient`s outcome was stronger in lower income patients, which may have resulted because these individuals are reported to have fewer resources for diagnosis and medical treatment [32].…”