Collaborative Psychosocial Oncology Care Models

2015 ◽  
pp. 717-725
Author(s):  
Jesse R. Fann ◽  
Jennifer Sexton
2021 ◽  
pp. 385-392
Author(s):  
Jesse R. Fann ◽  
Julia Ruark ◽  
Michael Sharpe

This chapter describes how the collaborative care model can be used to integrate psychosocial care into cancer care. It also describes the evolution of, and evidence for, the collaborative care approach in cancer services. Collaborative care consists of systematic identification of need, integrated delivery of psychosocial care by care managers with specialist supervision, and the stepping up of care based on the systematic measurement of outcomes. Trials of this approach for the management of depression and pain in patients with cancer have found it to be feasible to deliver, effective in improving outcomes, and cost-effective. The chapter describes how to overcome patient, provider, and institutional challenges in providing psychosocial care in diverse oncology settings. It concludes by proposing practical steps for implementing and sustaining an integrated psychosocial oncology service based on the principles of collaborative care.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzia Travado ◽  
Joaquim C. Reis ◽  
Maggie Watson ◽  
Josep Borràs

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1578-1578
Author(s):  
Lalan S. Wilfong ◽  
Amila Patel ◽  
Lance Ortega ◽  
Rhonda Boren ◽  
Ben Pearson ◽  
...  

1578 Background: Value-based care models such as the Oncology Care Model incentivize practices to reduce hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits. Texas Oncology found that most ED visits occurred during regular business hours. Prolonged patient call back times were consistently rated poorly on satisfaction surveys and often led to ED visits for symptoms that could be managed in our offices. We partnered with Navigating Cancer (NC) to implement an electronic patient management technology solution. Methods: For each of our 200 locations, call volume was estimated based on clinic volume. We then reallocated or hired dedicated triage nurses and operators. Incoming calls were entered into the NC dashboard by operators as incidents which were routed based on symptom priority following system generated prompts. Incident volumes and resolution times were tracked. We instituted PDSA cycles at all locations with a goal of less than 90-minute resolution of symptom-related incidents Utilizing the electronic dashboard allowed us to continue this initiative during the COVID-19 public health emergency as our staff could work remotely. Nurses were able to document if a potential ED visit was avoided. These data points allowed our practice to establish comprehensive and strategic actions plans for quality improvement. Results: We finalized implementation of the system in February of 2020. Total incidents for 2020 were over 1 million, averaging over 5000 per location. Resolution time for all incidents started at 3.2 hours pre-implementation and improved to 2.2 hours in December of 2020. Resolution times for symptom-related incidents started at 2.3 hours pre-implementation and ended at 1.5 hours in December of 2020 with over 60% resolved under one hour. 8% of symptom-related incidents resulted in definite or probable ED avoidances by nursing assessment. Shortness of breath, vomiting, chills, and weakness were the top symptom types addressed for ED avoidances. Conclusions: An electronic patient management solution with PDSA cycles of quality improvement can markedly reduce call back times, especially for symptom related calls. We believe managing symptoms in a timely fashion will lower ED visits and hospitalizations as well as improve patient satisfaction. We will report on these outcomes once available.[Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 2041-2047
Author(s):  
Kailey E. Roberts ◽  
Greta Jankauskaite ◽  
Elizabeth Slivjak ◽  
Lisa Rubin ◽  
Sherry Schachter ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadisha Ratnasekera ◽  
Irosha Perera ◽  
Pushpakumara Kandapolaarachchige ◽  
Gayan Surendra ◽  
Nadeena Jayasuriya ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 2134-2145
Author(s):  
Claudia Romkey-Sinasac ◽  
Stephanie Saunders ◽  
Jacqueline Galica

(1) Background: One in two Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, but as a result of the progress in diagnosis and treatment, more individuals are surviving cancer than ever before. However, the impact of cancer does not end with treatment. The objectives of this review are to (1) provide a broad overview of the supportive care interventions and models of care that have been researched to support Canadian post-treatment cancer survivors; and (2) analyze how these supportive care interventions and/or care models align with the practice recommendations put forth by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology/Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CAPO/CPAC). (2) Methods: An electronic search was completed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in January 2021. Included studies described supportive care interventions or models of care utilized by adult Canadian cancer survivors. (3) Results: Forty-two articles were included. Survivors utilized a multitude of supportive care interventions, with peer support and physical activity programs being most frequently cited. Four models of follow-up care were identified: primary care, oncology care, shared-care, and transition clinics. The supportive care interventions and models of care variably aligned with the recommendations set by CCO and CAPO/CPAC. The most commonly followed recommendation was the promotion of self-management and quality resources for patients. (4) Conclusions: Results indicate an inconsistency in access to supportive care interventions and the delivery of survivorship care for cancer survivors across Canada. Current efforts are being made to implement the recommendations by CCO and CAPO/CPAC; however, provision of these guidelines remains varied.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Murphy Colligan ◽  
Erin Ewald ◽  
Sarah Ruiz ◽  
Michelle Spafford ◽  
Caitlin Cross-Barnet ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 2247-2249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zimeng Li ◽  
Jinjiang Li ◽  
Lili Tang ◽  
Ying Pang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document