Perceptions on caring for adult survivors of childhood cancer in the primary care setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9568-9568
Author(s):  
J. Sima ◽  
S. M. Perkins ◽  
D. A. Haggstrom

9568 Background: Encouraging cure rates for childhood cancers have resulted in a population of adult childhood cancer survivors (CCS) that are at risk for late effects of cancer-directed therapy. Late effects often occur when CCS are older and receive routine medical care from internists and family practitioners. Our study identifies facilitators and barriers to providing optimal late effects screening as well as evaluating information sources primary care providers (PCPs) perceive as useful, including cancer treatment summaries, survivorship care plans, and Children's Oncology Group (COG) guidelines. Methods: We sampled 1,500 randomly selected general internal medicine and family practice physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile for a nationwide mail survey. We received 351 surveys with data. Using chi-squared tests or t-tests to compare responders and non-responders we found a higher response rate for family practice (30.2%) compared to general internal medicine (16.5%) (p<.0001). Results were tabulated for descriptive purposes and linear regression and logistic regression were used for the multivariable modeling. Results: Most (84–86%) PCPs stated that they had never received a cancer treatment summary or survivorship care plan; despite this, greater than 90% thought these documents would be useful. Most PCPs (93%) had never used COG guidelines, but 86% agreed that they would follow their recommendations. A minority of PCPs perceived that their medical training was adequate to recognize late effects of chemotherapy (27.6%), cancer surgery (36.6%), and radiation therapy (38.1%). Conclusions: PCPs have a low level of awareness about the medical problems of CCS; receive inadequate training to recognize late effects; and infrequently utilize, cancer treatment summaries, survivorship care plans, and COG guidelines. By evaluating the perceptions of PCPs, we have identified problematic areas for future investigation and have begun to lay the groundwork for incorporating follow-up care for CCS into routine general medical practice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10007-10007
Author(s):  
Cary Philip Gross ◽  
Wilhelmenia Lee Ross ◽  
Jaime L. Rotatori ◽  
Hannah-Rose Mitchell ◽  
Xiaomei Ma ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 110 (12) ◽  
pp. 1352-1359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina S Kadan-Lottick ◽  
Wilhelmenia L Ross ◽  
Hannah-Rose Mitchell ◽  
Jaime Rotatori ◽  
Cary P Gross ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e329-e335 ◽  
Author(s):  
SarahMaria Donohue ◽  
Mary E. Sesto ◽  
David L. Hahn ◽  
Kevin A. Buhr ◽  
Elizabeth A. Jacobs ◽  
...  

Survivorship care plans were viewed as useful for coordinating care and making clinical decisions. However primary care physicians desired shorter, clinician-oriented plans that were accessible via EHR and located in a standardized manner.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Talya Salz ◽  
Erin Onstad ◽  
Mary S. McCabe ◽  
Shrujal S. Baxi ◽  
Richard L. Deming ◽  
...  

8 Background: The Institute of Medicine advised that cancer survivors and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited. Methods: Oncology providers at 14 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) hospitals completed a survey regarding their perceptions of SCPs, including barriers to implementation, strategies for implementation, the role of oncology providers, and the importance of topics in SCPs (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, and the aspects of ongoing care that the oncology practice will provide). Results: Among 245 providers (70% response rate), a minority reported ever providing an SCP or any of its components to patients. The most widely reported barriers were personnel to creating SCPs and time (69% and 64% of respondents, respectively). The most widely endorsed strategy among those using SCPs was the use of a template with pre-specified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, while 87%-89% of oncology providers felt it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58%-65% of respondents felt it was very important for patients to receive the information. Further, 33%-38% of respondents had mixed feelings about whether it was oncology providers’ responsibility to provide SCPs. Conclusions: Practices need additional resources to overcome barriers to implementing SCPs. We found resistance toward SCPs, particularly the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP dissemination.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 527-527
Author(s):  
James M. Metz ◽  
Margaret K. Hampshire ◽  
Carolyn Vachani ◽  
Gloria A. Di Lullo ◽  
Christine Hill-Kayser

527 Background: Colorectal cancer patients may be at risk for late effects after treatment, the impact of which may difficult to evaluate using conventional methods. Here, we described patient reported outcomes after CRC, as well as use of survivorship care plans. Methods: Patient-reported data were gathered via a convenience sample frame from CRC survivors voluntarily utilizing a publically available, free, Internet-based tool for creation of survivorship care plans. Available at www.livestrongcareplan.com and through the OncoLinkwebsite, the tool allows survivors to enter data regarding diagnosis, demographics, and treatments, and provides customized guidelines for future care. During use of the tool, CRC survivors are queried regarding late effects associated with specific treatments, and asked to answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” They are also asked to score GI toxicity using WHO criteria. All data have been maintained with IRB approval. Results: 657 CRC survivors utilized the care plan and answered queries regarding late effects; 64% were female and 82% Caucasian. Median diagnosis age was 50 (24 – 76) and median current age 54 (24 – 77). Many reported having had multimodality therapy - 97% surgery, 89% chemotherapy, and 37% radiation. Overall, 63% reported chronic changes in bowel patterns, 38% chronic diarrhea, 9% bowel obstruction, 18% hernia development, 8% radiation colitis, and 2% fistula formation. Of 249 survivors who graded GI toxicity, 23% reported 4-6 stools per day, and 18% > 6 stools per day or incontinence. When queried regarding sexual function, 35% of men reported worse erectile function than pre-treatment, and 42% of women reported sexual changes such as vaginal dryness. A follow-up survey was completed by 31 (5%) of users, who reported that care plans improved knowledge about late effects (90%) and potential related treatments and tests (83%). Conclusions: Survivors using this tool report significant toxicity after cancer treatment, mainly related to GI and sexual function. Survivors appear to gain knowledge from survivorship care plans. The data reported here may be of significant impact in future study of quality of life, as well as patient counseling and survivor care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document