Oral Presentation 36th TROG Cancer Research Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

Investigating Oncologists’ attitudes towards the transition of patients to primary care for treatment follow-up (#12)

Joshua Dass 1 , Georgia Halkett 2 , Megan O'Brien 1 , Aylin Yahya 1 , Angela Jacques 3 4
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology , Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  2. Curtin School of Nursing , Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
  3. Department of Research, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  4. Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia

Background: The number of people diagnosed with cancer is increasing, and due to improvements in cancer treatments, more patients may survive for many years after completing treatment. As a result, tertiary cancer centres must manage large numbers of both newly diagnosed patients and patients who have entered post treatment follow-up. Current guidelines do not specify which specialist doctor should provide treatment follow-up, and when patients should be transitioned to their General Practitioner (GP) for ongoing care. Few studies have explored the perspectives of Australian oncologists in their role in providing treatment follow-up.

Aim: to explore oncologists’ perspectives to current follow-up practices in Western Australia.  

Methods: Thirty-six oncologists (radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and haematologists) who treat cancer patients at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Participants were also asked to complete a study-specific pilot survey. Descriptive statistics were calculated from the quantitative data collected and the qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: The study is currently underway with 18 participants who shared their experiences and feedback through surveys and interviews. Responses have been dependent on the cancer type, treatment stage and disease progression. Emerging themes included: clinics are full; recognition of importance of survivorship in a setting of post-traumatic growth; trusting GPs to manage follow up; providing GPs with information; communications with GPs; and concerns regarding follow up imaging.

Conclusion: The interim analysis of this study shows considerable variation among oncologists in the management of patients during the survivorship period and a need for a more coordinated pathway for patients. It is important that the study continues so the generalizability of these preliminary findings can be expanded. The demonstrated feasibility of this project supports larger-scale surveys of oncologists nationally national jurisdictions, to further inform optimal delivery of cancer survivorship care within these care systems.