Follow‐up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals

• Published in: European journal of cancer care Vol. 30; no. 6; pp. e13505 - n/a
• Main Authors: Ankersmid, Jet W., Hoeve, Jolanda C., Strobbe, Luc J. A., Riet, Yvonne E. A., Uden‐Kraan, Cornelia F., Siesling, Sabine, Drossaert, Constance H. C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Hindawi Limited 01.11.2021; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: aftercare; Best practice; Breast cancer; care pathways; Continuity of care; Decision making; follow‐up; Health care; Hospitals; Original; Patients; personalised care; Rehabilitation; Surveillance; Survivor; survivorship care; Variation
• ISSN: 0961-5423; 1365-2354
• DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13505

Objective Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs. Methods Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach. Results Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare. Conclusions Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.