Follow-up care of young childhood cancer survivors: attendance and parental involvement.

PURPOSE Despite recommendations, only a proportion of long-term childhood cancer survivors attend follow-up care. We aimed to (1) describe the follow-up attendance of young survivors aged 11-17 years; (2) describe the parental involvement in follow-up, and (3) investigate predictors of follow-up attendance and parental involvement. METHODS As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to parents of childhood cancer survivors aged 11-17 years. We assessed follow-up attendance of the child, parents' involvement in follow-up, illness perception (Brief IPQ), and sociodemographic data. Clinical data was available from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry. RESULTS Of 309 eligible parents, 189 responded (67 %; mean time since diagnosis 11.3 years, range 6.8-17.2) and 75 % (n = 141) reported that their child still attended follow-up. Of these, 83 % (n = 117) reported ≥1 visit per year and 17 % (n = 23) reported <1 visit every year. Most survivors saw pediatric oncologists (n = 111; 79 % of 141), followed by endocrinologists (n = 24, 17 %) and general practitioners (n = 22, 16 %). Most parents (92 %) reported being involved in follow-up (n = 130). In multivariable and Cox regression analyses, longer time since diagnosis (p = 0.025) and lower perceived treatment control (assessed by IPQ4: how much parents thought follow-up can help with late effects; p = 0.009) were associated with non-attendance. Parents' overall information needs was significantly associated with parental involvement in the multivariable model (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION Educating survivors and their parents on the importance and effectiveness of follow-up care might increase attendance in the longer term.

Safety climate and its association with office type and team involvement in primary care

OBJECTIVE To assess differences in safety climate perceptions between occupational groups and types of office organization in primary care. METHODS Primary care physicians and nurses working in outpatient offices were surveyed about safety climate. Explorative factor analysis was performed to determine the factorial structure. Differences in mean climate scores between staff groups and types of office were tested. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors for a 'favorable' safety climate. RESULTS 630 individuals returned the survey (response rate, 50%). Differences between occupational groups were observed in the means of the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (physician 4.0 vs. nurse 3.8, P < 0.001). Medical centers scored higher compared with single-handed offices and joint practices on the 'team-based error prevention'-scale (4.3 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001) but less favorable on the 'rules and risks'-scale (3.5 vs. 3.9 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001). Characteristics on the individual and office level predicted favorable 'team-based error prevention'-scores. Physicians (OR = 0.4, P = 0.01) and less experienced staff (OR 0.52, P = 0.04) were less likely to provide favorable scores. Individuals working at medical centers were more likely to provide positive scores compared with single-handed offices (OR 3.33, P = 0.001). The largest positive effect was associated with at least monthly team meetings (OR 6.2, P < 0.001) and participation in quality circles (OR 4.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Results indicate that frequent quality circle participation and team meetings involving all team members are effective ways to strengthen safety climate in terms of team-based strategies and activities in error prevention.