Survey of the provision of supportive care services at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 756-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
P H Coluzzi ◽  
M Grant ◽  
J H Doroshow ◽  
M Rhiner ◽  
B Ferrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Private Industry ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services

PURPOSE The purpose of this survey was to determine the scope of supportive care services (SCS) designed to promote quality of life during cancer therapies at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. METHODS A survey was mailed to the medical directors and nursing directors of 52 NCI-designated comprehensive (n = 26), clinical (n = 11), and planning cancer centers (n = 15) in the United States. Only one survey was completed from each institution. Survey questions identified services provided such as pain management, terminal care, psychosocial programs, and spiritual care. RESULTS Thirty-nine questionnaires were received for a total response rate of 75%. Of the respondents, 45% were comprehensive cancer centers, 24% clinical cancer centers, and 29% planning centers. One center did not identify their NCI designation. Sixty-one percent of the centers reported research programs in supportive care. Outside funding was reported in 51% of the respondents, with 39% having American Cancer Society (ACS) or National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding and 28% having private industry funding. Overall SCS self-ratings improved from a 21% rating of excellent to very good 5 years ago to the current 54% rating. CONCLUSION Survey results provide data on SCS across a representative sample of NCI cancer centers and can be used to develop standards for future cancer control programs.

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 Landscape of Global Oncology Research and Training at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers: Results of the 2018 to 2019 Global Oncology Survey

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Abudu ◽  
Mishka K. Cira ◽  
Doug H.M. Pyle ◽  
Kalina Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
And Training

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the NCI Center for Global Health collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018/2019 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS Seventy NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-seven NDCCs responded to the survey. Data were coded and analyzed by NCI-Center for Global Health staff. RESULTS Thirty-three NDCCs (47%) reported having a global oncology program, and 61 (87%) reported a collective total of 613 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 reported that trainees completed rotations outside the United States and the same number enrolled trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Primary focus areas of non–NIH-funded projects were research (469 [76.5%]) and capacity building or training (197 [32.1%]). Projects included collaborators from 110 countries; 68 of these were LMIC. CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training conducted by NDCCs and that much of this is happening in LMIC. Trends in these data reflect those in recent literature: The field of global oncology is growing, advancing scientific knowledge, contributing to building research and training capacity in LMIC, and becoming a recognized career path. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

scholarly journals Global Oncology Research and Training Collaborations Led by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers: Results From the 2018 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalina Duncan ◽  
Rachel Abudu ◽  
Mishka K. Cira ◽  
Doug H.M. Pyle
Keyword(s):  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
And Training

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations that contribute to the evidence to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the National Cancer Institute Center for Global Health (NCI-CGH) collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS The 70 NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-five NDCCs responded to the survey, and 57 reported non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Data were cleaned, coded, and analyzed by NCI-CGH staff. RESULTS Thirty NDCCs (43%) report having a global oncology program, and 538 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were reported. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 report that trainees complete rotations outside the United States, and the same number enroll trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, 147 (28%) of the non–NIH-funded projects focused on capacity building or training, the second highest category after research. Of the 30 top project collaborator countries, 17 were LMICs. Compared with the NCI-funded international grant portfolio, non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were more likely to focus on prevention (12% NCI-funded v 20% non–NIH-funded); early detection, diagnosis, and prognosis (23% v 30%); and cancer control, survivorship, and outcomes research (13% v 22%). CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training supported by NDCCs, and much of this is happening in LMICs. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

The availability versus accessibility gap in supportive care services at 40 NCI-designated cancer centers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Hutchins ◽  
Geoffrey Hamlyn ◽  
Abby Johnston ◽  
Rishonda Thomas ◽  
James Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Education ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Complete Information ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services

283 Background: Many cancer centers have developed and fostered several supportive care services to ease the stress of a cancer diagnosis. The availability of such services is key to Commission on Cancer (CoC) for accreditation, which many cancer centers pursue and patients seek as a measure of quality. Despite the stated availability of supportive care services, we wondered how easily new patients could access these services when first contacting a major cancer center. Methods: We used a ‘mystery shopper’ format to simulate calls made by a family member of a recently diagnosed patient to 40 NCI-designated cancer centers. We called each center four times on different days, twice with the caller reporting Medicaid insurance, twice with private insurance. We evaluated quantitative and qualitative components of the call, including time to next available appointment and reported availability of the 7 supportive services reported to the CoC. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each quantitative measure. Results: We placed 160 calls to 40 NCI-designated cancer centers. 38.2% of callers were unable to receive complete information about the number of supportive care services offered, whether because they were unable to reach a person or because the person they reached did not know whether one or more of the services was offered. Overall, only 37.6% of callers (60.8% of those who reached a person who could answer their questions) were told that all seven supportive care services were offered. Call recipients responded with an answer other than yes to whether the cancer center offered a multidisciplinary team approach (14.6%), patient navigation services (12.1%), genetic assessment/counseling (9.5%), palliative care (9.5%), counseling/psychological services (7.6%), or cancer education services (6.4%). Conclusions: Despite the stated availability of seven key supportive care services, we were unable to access all services during a call to establish an appointment about one-third of the time. For individual services, about 10% of the time we were told such services did not exist at the cancer center. Further research is needed to close the availability vs. accessibility gap in oncology supportive care.

The Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) story: review of community oncologists' experiences with clinical research trials in cancer with an emphasis on the CCOP of the National Cancer Institute between 1982 and 1987.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1718-1723 ◽  
Author(s):  
R W Frelick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Clinical Research Trials

PURPOSE To review the growth of community physicians' involvement in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical research trials as a significant contribution to cancer control, and to show their impact, not yet fully realized, on cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States. DESIGN Background information, based on the personal experience of participants, as well as a review of pertinent literature, portrays the evolution of the clinical research component of community oncology in the United States over the last 25 years. RESULTS Data from Community Clinical Oncology Programs (CCOPs) I and II have been used to outline some of the results of this far-reaching program. CONCLUSION The CCOP was introduced at an appropriate time to expand the clinical trial resources of the NCI, while at the same time helping community oncologists practice state-of-the-art cancer management found in the research protocols. This in turn provided improved resources to manage cancer patients, as most of them are treated in their own communities. CCOPs have also indirectly had a positive impact on the trial processes of the NCI cooperative groups and comprehensive cancer centers, and have helped to widen the scope and hasten progress in cancer-control research and practice.

Wide variation in content of inpatient do-not-resuscitate order forms used at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in the United States

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna S. Zhukovsky ◽  
Jessica P. Hwang ◽  
J. Lynn Palmer ◽  
Jie Willey ◽  
Anne L. Flamm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
The United States ◽  
Do Not Resuscitate ◽  
Cancer Centers

scholarly journals Geospatial approaches to cancer control and population sciences at the United States cancer centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Korycinski ◽  
Bethany L. Tennant ◽  
Michelle A. Cawley ◽  
Bonny Bloodgood ◽  
April Y. Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Centers

The availability/accessibility gap of palliative care and supportive care services at 40 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Kathryn Hutchins ◽  
Geoffrey Hamlyn ◽  
Abby Johnston ◽  
Rishonda Thomas ◽  
James Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Education ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Complete Information ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Genetic Assessment

122 Background: All NCI-designated, comprehensive cancer centers report having consultative palliative care services alongside six other supportive care services. Inaccuracies in the understanding of these services among frontline office staff may undermine their accessibility to patients. We investigated how easily new patients could access these services when first contacting a major cancer center. Methods: We used a ‘mystery shopper’ format to simulate calls made by a family member of a recently diagnosed patient. We used a standardized call script, describing a female patient, age 58, recently diagnosed with inoperable liver cancer. We called each center four times on different days and evaluated quantitative and qualitative components. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each quantitative measure. Results: We placed 160 calls to 40 NCI-designated cancer centers. 38.2% of callers were unable to receive complete information about supportive care services. Overall, only 37.6% of callers (60.8% of those reaching someone who could answer questions) were told all 7 supportive care services were offered. In 9.5% of calls, call recipients gave an answer other than “yes” to whether the cancer center offered palliative care. Callers were told regarding palliative care: that it was for end of life patients only (2 calls), that there weren’t doctors who focused on symptom management (3), its availability depends on review of medical records (2), or that the call recipient was unsure either of the availability of palliative care (10), or did not know what the term meant (2). Availability responses other than “yes” were obtained in the following frequencies: multidisciplinary approach (14.6%), patient navigation (12.1%), genetic assessment (9.5%), psychological services (7.6%), and cancer education services (6.4%). Conclusions: Despite the stated availability of seven key supportive care services, accessibility was limited in one-third of calls. In about 10% of cases where a person was reached, the call recipient was unable to confirm that palliative care was offered. Further research is needed to close the availability vs. accessibility gap in oncology palliative and supportive care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document