Knowledge and Preferences of Primary Care Providers in Delivering Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1323-1327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Callie Berkowitz ◽  
Deborah H. Allen ◽  
Jennifer Tenhover ◽  
Leah L. Zullig ◽  
John Ragsdale ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Salner ◽  
Shrujal S. Baxi ◽  
Elizabeth Fortier ◽  
Talya Salz

51 Background: Survivorship care plans SCPs typically include generic advice for cancer surveillance, management of late effects (LEs), wellness recommendations (WRs), and cancer screening. We developed a platform called HN-STAR that uses electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and evidence-based management guidelines to generate tailored SCPs for head and neck cancer survivors (HNCSs), a population particularly vulnerable to various LEs. We surveyed HNCSs and their primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the SCP to assess its acceptability and usefulness. Methods: HNCSs at 2 cancer hospitals used HN-STAR. Prior to a routine clinic visit, HNCSs used a validated ePRO measure (PRO-CTCAE) to report 22 physical LEs and other measures to assess wellness. Based on the visit discussion, HN-STAR generated an SCP that included a treatment summary, WRs, and LE management plans. HNCSs indicated their perceptions of the SCP and intentions to adhere to WR and LE management recommendations. PCPs reported on the SCP utility and their comfort in managing WRs and LEs. Results: 47 HNCSs completed surveys (mean 5.4 yrs. from treatment completion). Most were white (89%), male (85%), had an oropharynx tumor (58%), and received multimodality therapy (81%). 51% experienced at least 9 of the 22 LEs in the last month (mean 8.2/person). 91% of HNCSs felt the SCP was easy to follow. 98% intended to follow recommendations for LEs management and 98% reported they would refer back to the SCP. 87% said they plan to share the SCP with a PCP. 23 PCPs completed the survey. 95% were satisfied with the SCP and 95% reported they would like to have one for every cancer patient. PCPs expressed varying levels of comfort in managing specific LEs of head and neck cancer (30-80%). Conclusions: Among HNCSs, an automatically generated SCP that was tailored to their WRs and LEs was acceptable, was trusted, and provided recommendations they intended to follow. PCPs found the SCP useful, and SCPs may help improve their comfort with LE management. Patient-centered SCPs that focus on existing LEs hold promise as a means to help survivors and PCPs manage survivorship issues.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Noreen Aziz ◽  
Anne-Michelle Noone ◽  
Julia H. Rowland ◽  
Arnold L. Potosky ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Floyd Buen ◽  
Emily J Martin ◽  
Neil Wenger ◽  
Kirsten Buen ◽  
Anne M. Walling

2 Background: Head and neck cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, yet little is known about the frequency and content of discussions addressing patients’ values, goals of care, and treatment preferences. Methods: Using an institutional cancer registry, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 70 decedents who underwent surgical treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We abstracted patients’ medical records using a standardized template. An independent reviewer re-abstracted 20% of the records. For abstracted data pertaining to documented values, goals of care, and/or treatment preferences our inter-rater reliability was greater than 93%. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 66 years and 69% were male. An enduring advance directive, a completed Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment form, and a serious illness conversation documented in the medical record were noted in 27%, 4%, and 49% of the medical records, respectively. Half of the documented goals of care discussions were held in the inpatient setting, over 50% were held in the last month of life, and 25% were held in the last week of life. These conversations involved specialist palliative care providers (47%), hematologist/oncologists (41%), hospitalists (32%), head and neck surgeons (21%), radiation oncologists (19%), and intensivists (18%). None of these discussions involved patients’ primary care providers. Of those with a known location of death, 58% died in the hospital and 4 out of 5 of these patients died during attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, serious illness communication was documented in the minority of patients who died of head and neck cancer. These discussions occurred late in the trajectory of illness. The continuity relationships of teams treating head and neck cancer patients (e.g., head and neck surgeon, radiation/oncologist and hematologist/oncologist) situate these clinicians in the best position to enact serious illness conversations. These data suggest that opportunities to have these discussions upstream are often missed.


Oral Oncology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 115-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean T. Massa ◽  
Rebecca L. Rohde ◽  
Carole Mckinstry ◽  
Malia Gresham ◽  
Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Salz ◽  
K. C. Oeffinger ◽  
P. R. Lewis ◽  
R. L. Williams ◽  
R. L. Rhyne ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 3408-3419
Author(s):  
Dominique Tremblay ◽  
Nassera Touati ◽  
Karine Bilodeau ◽  
Catherine Prady ◽  
Susan Usher ◽  
...  

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.


Cureus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukesh Manthri ◽  
Stephen A Geraci ◽  
Kanishka Chakraborty

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1219-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily M. Geramita ◽  
Ira R. Parker ◽  
Jill W. Brufsky ◽  
Brenda Diergaarde ◽  
G. J. van Londen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document