scholarly journals Psychosocial and Patient Support Services in Comprehensive Cancer Centers

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-106
Author(s):  
Rajshekhar Chakraborty ◽  
Navneet S. Majhail ◽  
Jame Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Support Services ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Holistic Care ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Patient Support ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Psychosocial Services ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Patients Experience

AbstractPatient support and psychosocial services are an important aspect of cancer care. Comprehensive cancer centers need to provide a spectrum of these services to provide high-quality and holistic care to cancer patients. Provision of these services begins from the time of diagnosis, continues through cancer treatment, and then subsequently transitions to survivorship or end-of-life phase. Examples of these services include psychological assessment and management, patient navigation, care coordination, genetic counseling, and complementary medicine. Survivorship care is an important aspect of patients’ experience during their cancer journey and beyond. This chapter discusses key psychosocial and supportive care services that are recommended for cancer centers that strive to provide comprehensive cancer care to their patients.

scholarly journals The role of comprehensive cancer centers in survivorship care

Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 119 ◽  
pp. 2200-2201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim H. Van Harten ◽  
Angelo Paradiso ◽  
Michelle M. Le Beau
Keyword(s):  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

scholarly journals Effect of PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) on the Cancer Care Pathway: Protocol for Implementation of the Patient Activation Measure-13 Item (PAM-13) Version

10.2196/17485 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e17485
Author(s):  
Elise Verot ◽  
Wafa Bouleftour ◽  
Corinne Macron ◽  
Romain Rivoirard ◽  
Franck Chauvin
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Patient Activation Measure

Background The increase in the number of cancer cases and the evolution of cancer care management have become a significant problem for the French health care system, thereby making patient empowerment as a long sought-after goal in chronic pathologies. The implementation of an activation measure via the Patient Activation Measure-13 item (PAM-13) in the course of cancer care can potentially highlight the patient’s needs, with nursing care adapting accordingly. Objective The objectives of this PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) multicentric study were as follows: (1) evaluate the implementation of PAM-13 in oncology nursing practices in 5 comprehensive cancer centers, (2) identify the obstacles and facilitators to the implementation of PAM-13, and (3) produce recommendations for the dissemination of such interventions in other comprehensive cancer centers. Methods This study will follow the “Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance” framework and will consist of 3 stages. First, a robust preimplementation analysis will be conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) linked to the “Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior” model to identify the obstacles and facilitators to implementing new nursing practices in each context. Then, using the Behavior Change Wheel, we will personalize a strategy for implementing the PAM-13, depending on the specificities of each context, to encourage acceptability by the nursing staff involved in the project. This analysis will be performed via a qualitative study through semistructured interviews. Second, the patient will be included in the study for 12 months, during which the patient care pathway will be studied, particularly to collect all relevant contacts of oncology nurses and other health professionals involved in the pathway. The axes of nursing care will also be collected. The primary goal is to implement PAM-13. Secondary factors to be measured are the patient’s anxiety level, quality of life, and health literacy level. The oncology nurses will be responsible for completing the questionnaires when the patient is at the hospital for his/her intravenous chemotherapy/immunotherapy treatment. The questionnaires will be completed thrice in a year: (1) at the time of the patient’s enrollment, (2) at 6 months, and (3) at 12 months. Third, a postimplementation analysis will be performed through semistructured interviews using the TDF to investigate the implementation problems at each site. Results This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRIP PARACT 2016-0405) and the Lucien Neuwirth Institute of Cancerology of Saint-Etienne, France. Data collection for this study is ongoing. Conclusions This study would improve the implemented targeted nursing interventions in cancer centers so that a patient is offered a personalized cancer care pathway. Furthermore, measuring the level of activation and the implementation of measures intended to increase such activation could constitute a significant advantage in reducing social health inequalities. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03240341; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03240341 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17485

Availability of Outpatient Clinical Nutrition Services for Patients With Cancer Undergoing Treatment at Comprehensive Cancer Centers

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Platek ◽  
Jordan Johnson ◽  
Kathleen Woolf ◽  
Nour Makarem ◽  
Danielle C. Ompad
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Clinical Nutrition ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Nutrition Services ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Comprehensive cancer centers rely on referral-based clinical nutrition services, which are not always a part of multidisciplinary care. An in-depth comparison of clinical nutrition services among other approaches to cancer care is needed.

Effect of time between diagnosis and surgery in colorectal cancer patients on mortality.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 708-708
Author(s):  
Benjamin D Fangman ◽  
Muhammad Shaalan Beg ◽  
Aravind Sanjeevaiah ◽  
Farshid Araghizadeh ◽  
Shannon Scielzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Negative Correlation ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Early Surgical Intervention

708 Background: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed in the United States and accounts for > 50,000 deaths nationwide annually. With data showing that oncologic treatment at National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers improves outcomes in a variety of malignancies, understanding the drivers behind this is vital to help bring the world-class care being administered at comprehensive cancer centers to underserved populations across the U.S. One component of colorectal cancer care that has a paucity of data afforded to it is the effect of increased time from diagnosis to surgery on survival. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AJCC stage II or stage III colorectal cancer between 4/2011 and 11/2015 and either underwent surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy within the University of Texas Southwestern system were selected. Several pertinent data points were abstracted via the EMR including date of diagnosis, surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, progression, and death. A retrospective analysis was performed on the abstracted data to determine if the number of days between diagnosis and surgery was correlated with increased survival. Spearman coefficients were calculated to determine correlations between the data. All tests were two-sided. Results: Out of 203 patients identified, 113 patients had complete data available and were included in the study. The average age at diagnosis was 62.6 and average follow-up time was 41.4 months. Median time to surgery was 21 days (25th percentile-75th percentile: 4 – 53 days). There was a significant negative correlation between days from diagnosis to surgery and mortality (Spearman’s r = -.392, p < .001). Survivors had a mean of 42.7 days from diagnosis to surgery (SD = 56.4) and nonsurvivors had a mean of 61.7 days (SD = 46.9). Conclusions: There was a significant negative correlation seen in days between diagnosis and surgery and survival during the study period, which indicates that early surgical intervention may be an underappreciated indicator of quality colorectal cancer care. Further research should be conducted to better understand the relationship between early surgical intervention and prognosis in limited-stage colorectal cancer.

Seventeen years of progress for supportive care services: A resurvey of National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila L. Hammer ◽  
Karen Clark ◽  
Marcia Grant ◽  
Matthew J. Loscalzo
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Question Survey

AbstractObjective:We replicated a 1994 study that surveyed the state of supportive care services due to changes in the field and the increased need for such services. We provide an updated assessment, comparing the changes that have occurred and describing the current status of supportive care services in comprehensive cancer settings.Method:We used Coluzzi and colleague's 60-question survey from their 1995 Journal of Clinical Oncology article to frame the 98-question survey employed in the current study. Medical and palliative care directors for the 2011 National Cancer Institute (NCI) comprehensive cancer centers were surveyed regarding their supportive care services and their subjective review of the overall effectiveness of the services provided.Results:We achieved a 76% response rate (n = 31). The data revealed increases in the number of cancer beds in the hospitals, the degree of integration of supportive care services, the availability of complementary services, and the number of pain and palliative care services offered. There was also an overall shift toward centers becoming more patient centered, as 65% reported now having a patient and family advisory council. Our findings revealed a growing trend to offer distress screening for both outpatients and inpatients. Medical and palliative care directors' evaluations of the supportive care services they offered also significantly improved. However, the results revealed an ongoing gap in services for end-of-life care and timely referrals for hospice services.Significance of results:Overall, both the quantity and quality of supportive care services in the surveyed NCI-designated cancer centers has improved.

scholarly journals Cancerpedia: A Framework for Implementing Comprehensive Cancer Centres

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 244s-244s
Author(s):  
N. Abdelmutti ◽  
A. Chudak ◽  
M. Merali ◽  
T. Sullivan ◽  
M. Escaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
System Level ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Background and context: Comprehensive cancer centers or programs form a nucleus of cancer care delivery. Although there are frameworks for population cancer control, no similar published framework exists for cancer centers. Aim: We sought to develop a framework for designing and implementing a comprehensive cancer center or program within the context of a population-based model of cancer control that spans diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, and palliative care as well as integration with primary care and the community. Strategy/Tactics: The framework was constructed with the patient at the center and provides a system-level perspective as well as a granular view of the fundamental resources and structures needed to build and maintain individual cancer centers and programs. Due to its breadth, we focused the framework on essential information while linking to a wide range of vetted publications that detail additional standards, guidelines and best practices. Program/Policy process: “Cancerpedia” emerged as a cohesive framework for the delivery of high-quality cancer care within and beyond the cancer center. It provides an overview of the cancer control and care delivery framework, describes cancer care services (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative care) and details infrastructure and core services (e.g., physical facilities, human resources). In addition to these services, the framework presents guidelines for governance that ensure oversight and quality, describes the critical need for integrating education and research and presents the best practices for engaging in philanthropy. Cancerpedia also outlines the role of the comprehensive cancer center in integration with the community and influencing policy and regulation. Over 30 chapters provide a detailed description of each element and include a description of the service or function, resources requirements such as people, equipment and facilities, management structures, quality performance guidelines and future trends in innovation. Outcomes: To our knowledge, no comparable published framework exists as a reference for developing comprehensive cancer centers. Cancerpedia was designed to serve as a global public good and is adaptable and applicable to diverse contexts and healthcare environments. It is relevant to high-, middle- and low-income countries alike and provides a reference point from which to structure a plan for growth. What was learned: While it is important to describe the various elements required for cancer care delivery, it is critical to consider and address the integration and interdependencies of these various elements. Future opportunities for learning include seeking input from a global audience to gauge the utility and applicability of Cancerperdia to local contexts.

scholarly journals Effect of PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) on the Cancer Care Pathway: Protocol for Implementation of the Patient Activation Measure-13 Item (PAM-13) Version (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise Verot ◽  
Wafa Bouleftour ◽  
Corinne Macron ◽  
Romain Rivoirard ◽  
Franck Chauvin
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Patient Activation Measure

BACKGROUND The increase in the number of cancer cases and the evolution of cancer care management have become a significant problem for the French health care system, thereby making patient empowerment as a long sought-after goal in chronic pathologies. The implementation of an activation measure via the Patient Activation Measure-13 item (PAM-13) in the course of cancer care can potentially highlight the patient’s needs, with nursing care adapting accordingly. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) multicentric study were as follows: (1) evaluate the implementation of PAM-13 in oncology nursing practices in 5 comprehensive cancer centers, (2) identify the obstacles and facilitators to the implementation of PAM-13, and (3) produce recommendations for the dissemination of such interventions in other comprehensive cancer centers. METHODS This study will follow the “Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance” framework and will consist of 3 stages. First, a robust preimplementation analysis will be conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) linked to the “Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior” model to identify the obstacles and facilitators to implementing new nursing practices in each context. Then, using the Behavior Change Wheel, we will personalize a strategy for implementing the PAM-13, depending on the specificities of each context, to encourage acceptability by the nursing staff involved in the project. This analysis will be performed via a qualitative study through semistructured interviews. Second, the patient will be included in the study for 12 months, during which the patient care pathway will be studied, particularly to collect all relevant contacts of oncology nurses and other health professionals involved in the pathway. The axes of nursing care will also be collected. The primary goal is to implement PAM-13. Secondary factors to be measured are the patient’s anxiety level, quality of life, and health literacy level. The oncology nurses will be responsible for completing the questionnaires when the patient is at the hospital for his/her intravenous chemotherapy/immunotherapy treatment. The questionnaires will be completed thrice in a year: (1) at the time of the patient’s enrollment, (2) at 6 months, and (3) at 12 months. Third, a postimplementation analysis will be performed through semistructured interviews using the TDF to investigate the implementation problems at each site. RESULTS This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRIP PARACT 2016-0405) and the Lucien Neuwirth Institute of Cancerology of Saint-Etienne, France. Data collection for this study is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS This study would improve the implemented targeted nursing interventions in cancer centers so that a patient is offered a personalized cancer care pathway. Furthermore, measuring the level of activation and the implementation of measures intended to increase such activation could constitute a significant advantage in reducing social health inequalities. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03240341; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03240341 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/17485

scholarly journals ReCAP: Impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program on Clinical Trial and Related Activities at a Community Cancer Center in Rural Nebraska

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Sitki Copur ◽  
Ryan Ramaekers ◽  
Mithat Gönen ◽  
Mary Gulzow ◽  
Rebecca Hadenfeldt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
And Storage

QUESTION ASKED: What is the impact of participating in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) on the number of clinical trials available, number of patients enrolled in trials, and trial-related services provided to patients at a rural community-based cancer program? SUMMARY ANSWER: Significant increases in the number and percentage of patients enrolled in clinical trials, in the number of available treatment and non-treatment (eg, prevention, biospecimen, cancer control) trials, in clinical trial staffing, and in the number of tissue samples collected and/or stored were observed during the 5-year period of NCCCP. Biospecimen trials helped promote standardization of collection and storage processes in our community cancer program. Employment and utilization of a genetic counselor, smoking cessation counselor, outreach project coordinator, and two nurse navigators enabled delivery of improved cancer care continuum services to our rural patient population. METHODS: SFCTC clinical trial activities data from July 2002 to June 2007, the 5 years before participation in the NCCCP, and from July 2007 to June 2012, the 5 years during the program, were gathered and compared. Data capture included information on the number and percentage of patients on clinical trials, number and type of available clinical trials, percentage of underserved patients in clinical trials, clinical trial staffing, collection and storage of tissue samples, organizational infrastructure, linkage to NCI-designated cancer centers, and availability of new cancer care services. Percentages of patients in clinical trials were calculated as the ratio of the number of patients enrolled onto clinical trials over the number of analytic new patient cases of cancer through our tumor registry per year. Percentages of tissue samples collected and/or stored were similarly measured as the number of biospecimens collected over the number of analytic new patient cases of cancer per year. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and Wilcoxon tests. BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS: Data 5 years prior to and 5 years during NCCCP were prospectively collected. Analysis of data was performed after the completion of NCCCP. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: Improving access of all adult cancer patients to clinical trials in the communities where they live is crucial to provide the best cancer care. Participation in the NCCCP had a positive impact on our clinical trial and related activities, providing our rural Nebraska population with enhanced access to both clinical trials and cancer care services. Implementing programs and policies that facilitate the delivery of high-quality care in the community setting is feasible and greatly needed. The NCCCP had a positive impact by providing expanded spectrum of clinical trial types and programs to the population of patients in our cancer program service area. [Table: see text]

Wie bewährt sich das Konzept in der Praxis?

2010 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 44-44
Author(s):  
Rainer Bubenzer
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Comprehensive Cancer Centers als interdisziplinäre, die Grundlagenwissenschaften einbeziehende Kompetenzzentren für Krebserkrankungen erweitern das Aufgabenspektrum der klassischen Tumorzentren. Aktuelle Probleme betreffen ihre nachhaltige Finanzierung (vor allem im Bereich der Patientenversorgung), die noch unzureichende wissenschaftliche Evaluation, die potenziell größer werdende Kluft der Patientenversorgung in Zentren und in der Fläche sowie die unklare Positionierung der Forschung zwischen öffentlichen und kommerziellen Interessen. Ein Fach-Symposium in Berlin gab aktuelle Einblicke in die Arbeit einiger Spitzenzentren.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document