PurposeIn current fiscally constrained health care systems, the transition of cancer survivors to primary care from tertiary care settings is becoming more common and necessary. The purpose of our study was to explore the experiences of survivors who are transitioning from tertiary to primary care. MethodsOne focus group and ten individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data saturation was reached with 13 participants. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach.Results Eight categories relating to the main content category of transition readiness were identified in the analysis. Several factors affected participant transition readiness: how the transition was introduced, perceived continuity of care, support from health care providers, clarity of the timeline throughout the transition, and desire for a "roadmap." Although all participants spoke about the effect of their relationships with health care providers (tertiary, transition, and primary care), their relationship with the primary care provider had the most influence on their transition readiness. ConclusionsOur study provided insights into survivor experiences during the transition to primary care. Transition readiness of survivors is affected by many factors, with their relationship with the primary care provider being particularly influential. Understanding transition readiness from the survivor perspective could prove useful in ensuring patient-centred care as transitions from tertiary to primary care become commonplace.

BackgroundPrimary care-based memory clinics (PCMCs) have been established in several jurisdictions to improve the care for persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. We sought to identify key quality indicators (QIs), quality improvement mechanisms, and potential barriers and facilitators to the establishment of a quality assurance framework for PCMCs.MethodsWe employed a Delphi approach to obtain consensus from PCMC clinicians and specialist physicians on QIs and quality improvement mechanisms. Thirty-eight candidate QIs and 19 potential quality improvement mechanisms were presented to participants in two rounds of electronic Delphi surveys. Written comments were collected and descriptively analyzed.ResultsThe response rate for the first and second rounds were 21.3% (n = 179) and 12.8% (n = 88), respectively. The majority of respondents were physicians. Fourteen QIs remained after the consensus process. Ten quality improvement mechanisms were selected with those characterized by specialist integration, such as case discussions and mentorships, being ranked highly. Written comments revealed three major themes related to potential barriers and facilitators to quality assurance: 1) perceived importance, 2) collaboration and role clarity, and 3) implementation process.ConclusionWe successfully utilized a consultative process among primary and specialty providers to identify core QIs and quality improvement mechanisms for PCMCs. Identified quality improvement mechanisms highlight desire for multi-modal education. System integration and closer integration between PCMCs and specialists were emphasized as essential for the provision of high-quality dementia care in community settings.

Purpose Many countries are developing primary care collaborative memory clinics (PCCMCs) to address the rising challenge of dementia. Previous research suggests that quality assurance should be a foundational element of an integrated system of dementia care. The purpose of this paper is to understand physicians’ and specialists’ perspectives on such a system and identify barriers to its implementation. Design/methodology/approach The authors used interviews and a constructivist framework to understand the perspectives on a quality assurance framework for dementia care and barriers to its implementation from ten primary care and ten specialist physicians affiliated with PCCMCs. Findings Interviewees found that the framework reflects quality dementia care, though most could not relate quality assurance to clinical practice. Quality assurance was viewed as an imposition on practitioners rather than as a measure of system integration. Disparities in resources among providers were seen as barriers to quality care. Greater integration with specialists was seen as a potential quality improvement mechanism. Standardized electronic medical records were seen as important to support both quality assurance and clinical care. Practical implications This work identified several challenges to the implementation of a quality assurance framework to support an integrated system of dementia care. Clinicians require education to better understand quality assurance. Additional challenges include inadequate resources, a need for closer collaboration between specialists and PCCMCs, and a need for a standardized electronic medical record. Originality/value Greater health system integration is necessary to provide quality dementia care, and quality assurance could be considered a foundational element driving system integration.

Canadian medical oncologists face limitations to participating in and publishing QI initiatives because of lack of knowledge about ongoing initiatives, lack of time, and lack of resources to aid publication. Improving networking opportunities and prioritizing QI at the institutional level can address this need.