Background: Standardized cancer patient pathways (CPP) have been adopted as a new policy in several countries, including Sweden. CPPs aim to facilitate patients' trajectories within the health system and improve the timely diagnosis and treatment of cancer. In Sweden, the adoption of CPPs entailed a decision made by decision-makers at the top of the health system; this mandated the use of CPPs by primary and secondary healthcare professionals when assessing patients and addressing their symptoms. Typically, primary healthcare (PHC) is the first point of contact for patients in Sweden seeking care for symptoms that indicate serious illnesses such as cancer. This raises the question of how the adoption of CPPs influenced PHC. Given that the goal was for the policies to work as intended, i.e., to improve early diagnosis and treatment of cancer, understanding the influence of the adoption of CPPs on PHC and its professionals is needed.
Aim: To explore how the adoption of CPPs in northern Sweden influenced PHC organizations and provisions.
Methods: Qualitative (studies I-III) and quantitative (study IV) methods were utilized. Data were collected using individual and group interviews with participants working in the health system (I–III), and from the National Cancer Register concerning patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer before and after the introduction of CPPs. Additionally, data from electronic health record reviews, from Statistics Sweden, and regarding distance to the hospital for each patient, measured using Google Maps, were collected (IV). The individual interviews comprised participants in national, regional, and local leadership positions (I). The group interviews encompassed nurses and physicians working at PHC in one region (I–III). Interview data were analyzed using the Grounded Theory Method. The quantitative data was analyzed using comparative descriptive statistics and logistic regression (IV).
Results: The actors that adopted CPPs along the cancer trajectory and across the different healthcare levels were not equally involved in developing CPPs. Specifically, actors in PHC, which is the main entrance into care, were barely involved. This might have impacted the initial adoption and subsequent processes. The adoption of CPPs within the Swedish health system involved actors at different organizational levels. Distinct strategies were used to achieve shared goals, although this resulted in insufficient collaboration between the actors at different levels (I). The insufficient involvement of PHC resulted in unintended consequences, such as PHC organizations adjusting routines by themselves. PHC professionals combined existing work as usual with new practices following CPPs to facilitate timely diagnosis and were learning by testing the new ways of working in their practices. Moreover, they continued to manage the unequal relationship to secondary healthcare (II). Applying CPPs in patient encounters entailed challenges for professionals. When determining the seriousness of symptoms, they either relied on their professional competencies or followed symptoms described as alarming by the CPPs. Physicians perceived CPP templates to be easy to apply when their clinical cancer suspicions matched the predetermined criteria; when they did not, a workaround was needed to refer patients to secondary healthcare. Nurses and physicians described sensitively telling patients about upcoming rapid investigation procedures as challenging; for example, they did not want to frighten patients and sometimes tried to safeguard them by not providing detailed information about CPPs (III). The time to diagnosis was reduced for patients with colorectal cancer after the introduction of CPPs, particularly for those who initiated their pathway in PHC. However, for patients with right-sided colon cancer (in the ascending colon), the time to diagnosis did not improve (IV).
Conclusion: PHC is the entrance into healthcare and is important for early cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is essential to integrate the perspectives of PHC, e.g., nurses and physicians, when developing and adopting new policies to improve the diagnostic process. Despite the improvement of diagnostic processes that resulted from the introduction of CPPs, challenges remain when specific cancer symptoms are lacking, and clinical suspicions do not always align with the CPP templates.