Preferences for the organization of long-term follow-up in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

PURPOSE As survival rates of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients increase, a growing number of AYA cancer survivors need follow-up care. However, there is little research on their preferences for follow-up care. We aimed to (1) describe AYA cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and content of follow-up care, (2) describe their preferences for different models of follow-up, and (3) investigate clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with preferences for the different models. METHODS AYA cancer survivors (diagnosed with cancer at age 16-25 years; ≥5 years after diagnosis) were identified through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. Survivors completed a questionnaire on follow-up attendance, preferences for organizational aspects of follow-up care (what is important during follow-up, what should be included during appointments, what specialists should be involved, location), models of follow-up (telephone/questionnaire, general practitioner (GP), pediatric oncologist, medical oncologist, multidisciplinary team), and sociodemographic characteristics. Information on tumor and treatment was available through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. RESULTS Of 389 contacted survivors, 160 (41.1 %) participated and 92 (57.5 %) reported still attending follow-up. Medical aspects of follow-up care were more important than general aspects (p < 0.001). Among different organizational models, follow-up by a medical oncologist was rated higher than all other models (p = 0.002). Non-attenders of follow-up rated GP-led follow-up significantly higher than attenders (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Swiss AYA cancer survivors valued medical content of follow-up and showed a preference for medical oncologist-led follow-up. Implementation of different models of follow-up care might improve accessibility and attendance among AYA cancer survivors.

Can outcome prediction data change patient outcomes and organizational outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intensive care medicine consumes a high share of healthcare costs, and there is growing pressure to use the scarce resources efficiently. Accordingly, organizational issues and quality management have become an important focus of interest in recent years. Here, we will review current concepts of how outcome data can be used to identify areas requiring action. RECENT FINDINGS: Using recently established models of outcome assessment, wide variability between individual ICUs is found, both with respect to outcome and resource use. Such variability implies that there are large differences in patient care processes not only within the ICU but also in pre-ICU and post-ICU care. Indeed, measures to improve the patient process in the ICU (including care of the critically ill, patient safety, and management of the ICU) have been presented in a number of recently published papers. SUMMARY: Outcome assessment models provide an important framework for benchmarking. They may help the individual ICU to spot appropriate fields of action, plan and initiate quality improvement projects, and monitor the consequences of such activity.