PurposeRisk-stratified life-long follow-up care is recommended for adult childhood cancer survivors (CCS) to ensure appropriate prevention, screening, and management of late effects. The identification of barriers to long-term follow-up (LTFU), particularly in varying healthcare service contexts, is essential to develop and refine services that are responsive to survivor needs. We aimed to explore CCS and healthcare professionals (HCP) perspectives of healthcare system factors that function as barriers to LTFU in British Columbia, Canada.MethodsWe analyzed data from 43 in-depth interviews, 30 with CCS and 13 with HCP, using qualitative thematic analysis and constant comparative methods.ResultsBarriers to accessible, comprehensive, quality LTFU were associated with the following: (1) the difficult and abrupt transition from pediatric to adult health services, (2) inconvenient and under-resourced health services, (3) shifting patient-HCP relationships, (4) family doctor inadequate experience with late effects management, and (5) overdue and insufficient late effects communication with CCS.ConclusionsStructural, informational, and interpersonal/relational healthcare system factors often prevent CCS from initially accessing LTFU after discharge from pediatric oncology programs as well as adversely affecting engagement in ongoing screening, surveillance, and management of late effects.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsUnderstanding the issues faced by adult CCS will provide insight necessary to developing patient-centered healthcare solutions that are key to accessible, acceptable, appropriate, and effective healthcare.

No abstract

Background Patient-reported outcomes (pros) are essential to capture the patient’s perspective and to influence care. Although pros and pro measures are known to have many important benefits, they are not consistently being used and there is there no Canadian pros oversight. The Position Statement presented here is the first step toward supporting the implementation of pros in the Canadian health care setting. Methods The Canadian pros National Steering Committee drafted position statements, which were submitted for stakeholder feedback before, during, and after the first National Canadian Patient Reported Outcomes (canpros) scientific conference, 14–15 November 2019 in Calgary, Alberta. In addition to the stakeholder feedback cycle, a patient advocate group submitted a section to capture the patient voice. Results The canpros Position Statement is an outcome of the 2019 canpros scientific conference, with an oncology focus. The Position Statement is categorized into 6 sections covering 4 theme areas: Patient and Families, Health Policy, Clinical Implementation, and Research. The patient voice perfectly mirrors the recommendations that the experts reached by consensus and provides an overriding impetus for the use of pros in health care. Conclusions Although our vision of pros transforming the health care system to be more patient-centred is still aspirational, the Position Statement presented here takes a first step toward providing recommendations in key areas to align Canadian efforts. The Position Statement is directed toward a health policy audience; future iterations will target other audiences, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. Our intent is that future versions will broaden the focus to include chronic diseases beyond cancer.

The obstetric hospitalist and the obstetric and gynecologic hospitalist evolved in response to diverse forces in medicine, including the need for leadership on labor and delivery units, an increasing emphasis on quality and safety in obstetrics and gynecology, the changing demographics of the obstetric and gynecologic workforce, and rising liability costs. Current (although limited) research suggests that obstetric and obstetric and gynecologic hospitalists may improve the quality and safety of obstetric care, including lower cesarean delivery rates and higher vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates as well as lower liability costs and fewer liability events. This research is currently hampered by the use of varied terminology. The leadership of the Society of Obstetric and Gynecologic Hospitalists proposes standardized definitions of an obstetric hospitalist, an obstetric and gynecologic hospitalist, and obstetric and gynecologic hospital medicine practices to standardize communication and facilitate program implementation and research. Clinical investigations regarding obstetric and gynecologic practices (including hospitalist practices) should define inpatient coverage arrangements using these standardized definitions to allow for fair conclusions and comparisons between practices.