Developing a survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery process for patients and primary care providers serving poor, rural, and minority patients with cancer

Abstract Abstract 3156 Introduction Clinicians have different expectations and perceptions regarding the role of primary care providers (PCPs) and hematologist/ oncologists (Hem/Oncs) in the provision of follow-up and survivorship care for patients with hematologic malignancies, and for the cancer survivor in general [Cheung JCO 2009]. The continuing decline in the number of specialists will require PCP involvement in the care of the patients with hematologic malignancies in particular, as well as cancer survivors in general. An outcomes study investigated barriers to shared care/ co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies and current practices of PCPs and Hem/Oncs regarding communication, provider roles and responsibilities and resources needed to implement effective cancer survivorship care plans. Methods: Internet polling surveys within an educational activity developed by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) and Medscape LLC with outcomes assessment by CE Outcomes, LLC. The activity learning objectives centered on roles and communication touch points for PCPs and Hem/Oncs, strategies and tools for optimal patient care, and recommendations for care of survivors with hematologic malignancies. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologist and primary-care physicians to illustrate critical communication points between Hem/Onc and PCP. The activity addressed regional variations in care, fragmentation of care, and helped define healthcare provider roles in the shared–care model. Electronic health records (EHR) and a treatment summary form were discussed as methods for effectively communicating a survivorship care plan among healthcare providers. More than 4, 000 physicians participated in the activity; 170 specialists and 587 PCPs were respondents to the survey. Polling questions and outcomes survey addressed barriers and current practices in shared care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Responses of PCPs and Hem/Oncs were aggregated and compared to identify gaps in continuity of care between specialties. Results: A summary of interactivity responses of PCPs (N=587) and Hem/Oncs (N=170) shows the most significant barrier to co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies was “lack of defined roles and responsibilities for PCPs vs specialists” (51.5% Hem/Onc vs 53.2% PCP). Confusion over roles is evident as 55.6% of Hem/Onc respondents expect the oncology specialist to follow the patient during the “watch and wait' period, while 45.8% of PCPs expect the PCP to follow the patient, and 35.4% expect the PCP and specialist to follow the patient together. More than half of PCPs and specialists report that they should co-manage follow up for cancer recurrence. The majority of PCPs and specialists report that standardized communication tools are from “very to extremely important” yet only approximately one third of PCPs and specialists are currently using EHR resources, with a third in the process of implementing EHR in their practices. Conclusions: Barriers to the provision of shared care and co-management of the cancer survivor can be addressed by more clearly defining individual clinician roles and responsibilities. Bridging gaps in the survivorship care plan requires improved communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs to coordinate “watch and wait” care and follow-up screening, and effective methods to transfer patient records and history including Treatment Summary Forms and EHR. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Primary care providers' awareness and utilization of survivorship care plans.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.5_suppl.94 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽

pp. 94-94

Author(s):

Alicia R. Rosales ◽

Tina Schaal ◽

Shelby Darland ◽

Dan Sayam Zuckerman

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cancer Survivors ◽

Care Coordination ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Comfort Level ◽

Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Care Plans

94 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 requires that all patients who complete cancer treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). To aid in care coordination, the standard also requires that the SCP be provided to the patient’s primary care provider (PCP). St. Luke’s Mountain States Institute (MSTI) has been providing patients and PCPs with SCPs for more than 5 years. Other local accredited cancer centers also provide SCPs for their patients. Methods: In partnership with the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, MSTI created an online survey aimed at assessing the utilization of the SCP in primary care clinics and the PCP’s comfort level carrying out the recommended surveillance. The survey link was distributed through email to approximately 300 PCPs across a large geographical area in varying sized practices. Results: Sixty three responses were received in 3 weeks with 46 responses from physicians and 17 responses from advanced practice providers. All of the respondents said they care for cancer survivors in their practice but 54% have never received a SCP. Twenty nine reported having received a SCP and answered 8 questions related to how they use the SCP in practice. The majority refer to the SCP to monitor for recurrence and 52% use it as a tool for coordination of care. Forty eight percent use the SCP to manage co-morbid conditions. Ninety-five percent of all respondents indicated they feel comfortable carrying out a surveillance plan provided by the oncologist for patients 2 years out from treatment. Sixty-four percent indicated they would like additional education about caring for cancer survivors. A common theme in comments included the desire for improved communication between the oncologists and PCPs. Conclusions: This standard was created in part to improve care coordination between oncologists and PCPs. More than have of the PCPs in the MSTI service area have not seen a SCP for their patients. Most indicated they are comfortable providing surveillance if they have a clear follow-up care plan from the oncologist. More than half want additional information about caring for cancer survivors. Future exploration could include assessment of barriers to communication and utilizing the SCP in practice.

Download Full-text

Creation of an APN-led cancer survivorship clinic in a community cancer center.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.7_suppl.61 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽

pp. 61-61

Author(s):

Pamela Jane Vetter

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Side Effect ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Care Providers ◽

Care Plans

61 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, noted cancer patients often lacked the ability to successfully navigate the transition from patient to survivor (2006). To assist patients with understanding their disease and follow up, managing side effects and connecting with resources, the IOM recommends a survivorship care plan (SCP). The Commission on Cancer (CoC) is requiring accredited cancer programs provide SCPs to curative patients while giving them full discretion on structuring these programs. Methods: After researching survivorship components, a consultative model serving the adult cancer patients curatively treated at my facility was chosen. My goals included increasing patient satisfaction and connection to resources, fulfilling accreditation requirements, as well as financial benefits. I secured champions and procured budgetary approval. An assessment tool was created, a SCP program chosen, and a schedule created with IT. I gathered resources, reviewed side effect management, chose evaluation metrics and created educational materials and a tracking system. Results: 235 patients were seen in the first year of the clinic. Through nine months of 2017, 67.9% of eligible patients were provided with a SCP. Downstream revenue included patients changing to an Aspirus Primary Care Provider and referrals to various providers. Patients were connected to community and facility resources. Side effect assistance given; multiple medical issues addressed; additional Advanced Care Plans completed. Patients and Primary Care Providers are complimentary of the service. Conclusions: Successful start to survivorship clinic; will meet CoC accreditation. Many eligible patients who did not receive a SCP were seen at an unaffiliated Urology clinic. Moving forward, plan to work with their clinic to provide SCPs. Other challenges included time spent tracking patients, which should ease with a newly implemented electronic medical record.

Download Full-text

Determinants of survivorship care plan implementation in U.S. cancer programs.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.31_suppl.78 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 78-78 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sarah Birken ◽

Deborah Mayer ◽

Bryan Weiner ◽

Allison Mary Deal

Keyword(s):

Cancer Survivors ◽

Negative Relationship ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Quality ◽

Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Program Type ◽

Adoption And Implementation

78 Background: The Institute of Medicine recommended and many professional societies require survivorship care plan (SCP) use to facilitate cancer survivors’ transition from treatment to follow-up care. Rates of SCP adoption (plans to use SCPs) and implementation (current use) in US cancer programs remain unclear. Our objectives were to (1) assess rates of SCP adoption and implementation and (2) determine what distinguishes cancer programs that have implemented SCPs from those that have not moved beyond adoption. Methods: We surveyed employees knowledgeable about SCP adoption and implementation in a nationally representative sample of 100 US cancer programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results: The response rate was 80%. Ninety-six percent of programs adopted SCPs, but only 45% implemented SCPs. Among programs that implemented, SCP use remains inconsistent: Use is restricted primarily to breast (81.58%) and colorectal (55.26%) cancer survivors; in 58.33% of these programs, less than a quarter of providers has ever used SCPs; and SCPs are seldom delivered to survivors or their primary care providers. Employees in many programs indicated that SCPs were adopted because of the belief that SCPs would improve care quality and the release of professional society guidelines; however, neither of these factors influenced SCP implementation. Few quality markers (e.g., NCI-designated program type; Commission on Cancer membership) influenced SCP implementation. Determinants of SCP implementation included teaching hospital program type (p = .04) and NCCCP membership (p = .009). Freestanding facility type had a negative relationship with SCP implementation (p = .02). Conclusions: Given inconclusive evidence of SCPs’ effectiveness in improving care coordination and patient outcomes, many scholars have recently advocated for research to promote SCPs’ effectiveness. These efforts may be in vain if SCPs are not more routinely implemented. Efforts should be targeted at enabling programs to implement quality improvement tools. Future research should determine what promotes SCP implementation among teaching hospitals and NCCCP members, and what inhibits freestanding facilities from implementing SCPs.

Download Full-text

Survivors' narratives of the value of cancer survivorship care plans and clinical services.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.3_suppl.57 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 57-57

Author(s):

Guadalupe R. Palos ◽

Megan Hebdon ◽

Sara McComb ◽

Richard W Wagner ◽

Maria Alma Rodriguez

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Clinical Data ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Plan ◽

Care Practice ◽

Survivorship Care Plans ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Care Plans ◽

Head Neck

57 Background: Providers in primary care practice can benefit from having a better understanding of cancer survivors’ perceptions of the value of survivorship treatment summaries and care plans. Our objective was to qualitatively explore survivors’ perceptions of care received in dedicated outpatient clinics for survivors of breast, genitourinary (GU), and head/neck cancers. Methods: This study was conducted from August 8, 2014 to October 2, 2014 in 3 clinics, selected on variation in infrastructure, patient populations, and disease site. A convenience sample of survivors scheduled for an appointment in these clinics was eligible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by research staff trained in qualitative methodology. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Groups explored a) experience with care/services, b) value of care plan, service coordination and clinic operations and c) gaps/strengths in transition to clinics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and analyze demographic and clinical data. Discussions were transcribed verbatim with confirmation of themes among a team of researchers. Results: A total of 36 survivors, X= 62.3 (SD = 10.9) years, were interviewed. Of these 27.8% breast survivors, 38.9% head/neck, and 33.3% GU, with X= 8.33 (SD = 5.83) years since their cancer diagnosis. Of these, 80.5% were Caucasian, 8.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5.6% African-American. 61.1% were male and 78.6% married or living with someone. Survivors cited concerns about inconsistency in methods used to distribute care plans to survivors, inadequate communication about the purpose of the care plan, and vague recall of receiving care plans. Survivors reported the value of receiving survivorship care were “having an awareness of what’s up the road, establishing a constant relationship with their provider and addressing gaps in care”. Conclusions: The value of offering survivorship care is supported by the narratives of these survivors. Additional training and education on effective communication about survivorship care plans may be useful to oncology specialists and primary care providers.

Download Full-text

Transition of breast cancer (BC) survivors to primary care: Results of a Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) pilot project.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.32.30_suppl.58 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽

pp. 58-58 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jonathan Sussman ◽

Maria Grant

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Primary Care ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Process ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Transition Clinic ◽

Prospective Longitudinal

58 Background: Emerging evidence indicates that the transition of well breast cancer survivors to primary care is safe and effective. Methods: Prospective longitudinal cohort study across 14 health regions in Ontario, Canada. Each region received $100 000 (CAN) to develop and implement a sustainable new model of survivorship care for BC survivors that involved transition from medical oncology-led practice. Each region had a designated lead, and support from primary care. Funding could be used to develop any aspect of the model including personnel support, development of communication materials and outcome measurement. A minimal dataset reporting requirement included a description of the program, documentation of transitioned BC survivors as well as standardized patient and provider experience feedback once transition completed. Results: All 14 health regions in Ontario participated and all developed a survivorship care plan and patient educational materials. The models developed included direct transition to primary care in 6 regions, a nurse-led transition clinic in 4 and a GP-led transition clinic in 4. To date, 3,418 BC survivors have transitioned. Of 676 BC respondents to date, 83% felt there was a clear plan for follow up and 87% felt adequately prepared for transition. Feedback from primary care providers demonstrated that many feel informed about intent of transition and understand their role in on-going follow-up care. Process outcomes such as re-referral back to cancer center and adherence to follow-up guidelines are currently underway. Conclusions: The wide scale transition of appropriate BC survivors to a primary setting appears feasible with high acceptability by patients and providers.

Download Full-text

Implementation of survivorship care plans in the pediatric oncology clinic.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.7_suppl.55 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽

pp. 55-55 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christine Moore Smith ◽

Barron L. Patterson ◽

Debra L. Friedman

Keyword(s):

Pediatric Oncology ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Care Plans

55 Background: Quality survivorship care and follow up have been well described in the pediatric oncology population to improve overall health of cancer survivors. Typically, a key component is the delivery of a survivorship care plan (SCP) in a dedicated survivorship program. Creation of an SCP in the immediate post-treatment period has not been commonly adopted. To address the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement to provide SCPs within six months of ending therapy, our pediatric oncology clinic has used quality improvement (QI) methods to incorporate SCPs into clinic workflow with subsequent survivorship program referral. Our aim is to meet the CoC’s benchmark of 50% of eligible patients receiving SCPs by December 31, 2017. Our secondary goal is to improve the timeliness of delivery to patients, families, and primary care providers (PCP). Methods: Registry data from our cancer center was utilized to identify eligible patients. Upcoming appointments were then identified for a panel of eligible patients using the electronic medical record (EMR). Providers use a standardized SCP template which includes the components required by the CoC. The SCP is then reviewed with families, electronically sent to the PCP, and saved in the EMR. Evaluation of the process included subjective feedback from providers and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Based on this feedback and cycles, iterations of the template have been progressively streamlined and the EMR panel has been updated. Results: Care plan creation and delivery is ongoing. At baseline, 28% of eligible patients had SCPs previously created in the survivorship program. After implementation of our QI methods, to date, we have increased the proportion of eligible patients with an SCP to 40.3%, approaching our goal of 50% by December 31, 2017. We have also decreased the time from end of therapy to delivery of a care plan from 22.9 months to 14 months. This is expected to further improve as the process continues. Conclusions: The QI process has been successful in implementing a new standard of care for delivery of SCPs. Ongoing use of QI methods will increase compliance with the CoC standards and result in improved survivorship care.

Download Full-text

Streamlining survivorship care plan (SCP) creation and delivery to primary care providers in poor, rural, and minority patients.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e24181 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e24181-e24181

Author(s):

Bernard Tawfik ◽

Shoshana Adler Jaffe ◽

Jamina Oomen-Hajagos ◽

Lisa Mohler ◽

Inigo San Gil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Medical Record ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽

Survivorship Care Plan ◽

Survivorship Care ◽

Care Providers ◽

Care Plans ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Definitive Therapy

e24181 Background: The number of cancer survivors is rapidly climbing due to increased screening and improved treatment. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPS) summarize the patients’ treatment and is a communication tool between oncologists and primary care physicians (PCP)s. Creation and delivery of the SCPs has been labor intensive and costly for many healthcare systems and a previous paper based system at our institution was ineffective. The University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNMCCC) treats a unique population of lower socioeconomic status (SES) (poverty rate 19.7%), rural (22.6%) and minority (Native Americans and Hispanics constitute 10.4% and 48% of the population respectively) patients in a large rural state. Methods: Beginning March 2019, UNMCCC initiated a process for creation and delivery of SCPs through the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). EMRs are not designed to delivery SCPs to patients and PCPs, so EMR functions were creatively repurposed. Upon identification of eligible patients, providers would place an electronic SCP order through the EMR. Designated staff then partially completes the SCPs based on medical record review while the EMR imports demographics, PCP, cancer and stage. Then the EMR flags SCPs ready for delivery and the provider edits, approves and prints the SCP for the patient at the next encounter. Once printed, the EMR alerts medical records to send the SCP to the PCP via mail or EMR routing. Results: 282 SCPs were ordered, 222 (78.7%) were created and 86 (38.7%) given to patients after definitive therapy of Breast (77.9%), Colorectal (7.0%), Gynecological (9.3%) and Prostate Cancer (5.8%). Of 72 SCPs eligible to be sent to PCPs, 48 (66.7%) were successfully mailed or sent via EMR, 13 (18.1%) had PCP discrepancies, 6 (8.3%) had no PCP and 5 (6.9%) had PCPs in systems which do not accept unsolicited records. Conclusions: The UNMCCC cares for low SES, rural and minority patients and was able to create and deliver SCPs to a significant number of patients and PCPs. Future process steps will involve creating tailored SCPs for other diagnoses, resolving PCP discrepancy issues and creating an EMR alert for PCPs when they receive an SCP. Additionally, assessment of both patient and PCP perceptions is ongoing.

Download Full-text