Improving Cancer Treatment Communication between Secondary and Primary Care: A New Format for Written Communication

In decision making for cancer treatment, information is crucial for patients and health care professionals. Although conversations about treatment decisions take place in hospitals, many patients also appreciate the insights of their general practitioner (GP). GPs indicated that, in order to have meaningful conversations about treatment decisions with their patients, they need additional information about treatment options and considerations, such as expected benefits and side effects. In this practice innovation, we developed and implemented a new written communication format from medical specialists to GPs, aimed at providing accurate treatment information to facilitate GPs in supporting patients with cancer in decision-making. The new format added 3 specific headings to standard letters in the electronic patient files (EPFs): (1) treatment options, (2) treatment considerations, and (3) treatment intent. This innovation was implemented in a large university hospital in the Netherlands between 2020 and 2021. We performed a process evaluation of the implementation using the RE-AIM model, based on assessment of written communication obtained from patients’ EPFs, and telephonic interviews with specialists and GPs. In the Netherlands, all inhabitants are registered with a GP, who acts as a gatekeeper to specialist care, and has a comprehensive overview of a patient's history, based on digital communication with hospitals after referral for specialist care. EPFs are used to generate digital letters to communicate between medical specialists in a hospital and GPs outside the hospital. Incorporating new headings in the communication format in the EPF successfully encouraged medical specialists to share such information when used appropriately. Treatment options, considerations, and treatment intent were stated more often in the new format compared with the old format. GPs appreciated the new format, highlighting the value of including treatment considerations, which enhanced their comprehension of the medical specialist's thought processes. Recognition of the problem and motivation for improvement facilitated the implementation. Specialists stated the format to be time-efficient compared with the old format; however, technical improvements could make it easier to use. Automaticity to use of the old format, inadequate information, and technical issues were a barrier for implementation. In summary, a straightforward innovation can improve communication between medical specialists and GPs and promote the role of the GPs in decision making for cancer treatment.