Who is receiving survivorship care plans? Findings from the 2012 Livestrong survey.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9608-9608
Author(s):  
Ruth Rechis ◽  
Carla Bann ◽  
Stephanie Nutt ◽  
Linda Squiers ◽  
Naveen Rao
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Key Stakeholders

9608 Background: There are more than 14 million cancer survivors in the US – a number that is on the rise. Care coordination resources will be essential to provide support to this growing population. Key stakeholders, including the Commission on Cancer (CoC) and the Institute of Medicine, have proposed survivorship care plans (SCPs) as a way to extend support. However, limited research has been conducted to date on SCPs. Methods: In 2012, the LIVESTRONG Foundation (LIVESTRONG) administered a survey to understand the role of a treatment summary (TS) and SCPs and how they fit into survivors’ care. Logistic regression models were conducted to identify factors associated with receiving SCPs or TS. Results: 5,303 survivors responded to these questions (Table). While 92% of these respondents received information about where to return to for cancer check-ups, only 51% reported receiving a TS and 17% reported receiving a SCP. Survivors who were more likely to receive SCPs if they had a navigator (p<.001) and if they were male, Black, had finished treatment within the past year, or received care at a university-based medical center or community cancer center (p < 0.05). Also, those receiving a SCP were significantly more likely to have had a detailed discussion with a provider regarding long-term side effects, emotional needs, and lifestyle recommendations. Specifically, 60% of those with a SCP discussed long-term effects compared to 39% who did not. Conclusions: Results here indicate that few survivors receive SCPs but survivors reported benefits from receiving them. Currently many workflow barriers impede delivering SCPs, and LIVESTRONG is working with key stakeholders including the CoC to automate the LIVESTRONG Care Plan powered by Penn Medicine’s OncoLink through a registry and EMR system to understand how to address this issue. [Table: see text]

Who is receiving survivorship care plans? Findings from the 2012 LIVESTRONG survey.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Ruth Rechis ◽  
Stephanie Nutt ◽  
Carla Bann ◽  
Linda Squiers ◽  
Naveen Rao
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Key Stakeholders

26 Background: There are more than 14 million cancer survivors in the US – a number that is on the rise. Care coordination resources will be essential to provide support to this growing population. Key stakeholders, including the Commission on Cancer (CoC) and the Institute of Medicine, have proposed survivorship care plans (SCPs) as a way to extend support. However, limited research has been conducted to date on SCPs. Methods: In 2012, the LIVESTRONG Foundation (LIVESTRONG) administered a survey to understand the role of a treatment summary (TS) and SCPs and how they fit into survivors’ care. Logistic regression models were conducted to identify factors associated with receiving SCPs or TS. Results: 5,303 survivors responded to these questions. While 92% of these respondents received information about where to return to for cancer check-ups, only 51% reported receiving a TS and 17% reported receiving a SCP. Survivors who were more likely to receive SCPs if they had a navigator (p<.001) and if they were male, black, had finished treatment within the past year, or received care at a university-based medical center or community cancer center (p < 0.05). Also, those receiving a SCP were significantly more likely to have had a detailed discussion with a provider regarding long-term side effects, emotional needs, and lifestyle recommendations. Specifically, 60% of those with a SCP discussed long-term effects compared to 39% who did not. Conclusions: Results here indicate that few survivors receive SCPs but survivors reported benefits from receiving them. Currently many workflow barriers impede delivering SCPs, and LIVESTRONG is working with key stakeholders including the CoC to automate the LIVESTRONG Care Plan powered by Penn Medicine’s OncoLink through a registry and EMR system to understand how to address this issue.

A health system wide approach to the delivery of survivorship care plans.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 42-42
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Klemp ◽  
Heather Vanbebber ◽  
Tanya Folker ◽  
Lisa Serig ◽  
Tim Metcalf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Clinical Patient ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Accreditation Standards ◽  
Patient Reported

42 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recognized by organizations including the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, as a best practice for improving survivor care. Little evidence supports this and hospitals and cancer centers are scrambling to meet deadlines for SCP development and delivery. The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) addressed this utilizing electronic health record (EHR) integration, developing a health system wide approach to education and delivery, and building referral workflows to primary care and specialists. We report on this approach to developing and growing a survivorship care program. Methods: KUCC is a NCI designated cancer center within an academic medical center and health system, with 11 outpatient locations across the Kansas City. Under the guidance of a multidisciplinary team: providers, health care informatics, administrators, nursing, tumor registry, quality improvement, and researchers, KUCC developed a step-wise process to deliver comprehensive survivorship care across the health system. This multi-year initiative aligned with institutional accreditation standards and an ongoing focus on expanding evidence based, comprehensive cancer and supportive care. Results: In 2014 a formal survivorship program plan was put into action: Support from leadership, providers, research priority; Staff and patient survivorship education & training; Integrated delivery of survivorship care at all locations with direct interaction and feedback from cancer care teams; Short & long-term programmatic goals; Management and referral of late effects of cancer; EPIC integrated SCP template: auto-populated, customized, personalized; treatment summary uses tools that pull in data stored discreetly in the patient "file"; SCP delivery targeting COC phase-in timeline: 2015: n= 539 (10% projection n= 434); 2016: n= 1,355 (25% projection n=1,253). Conclusions: This step-wise, integrated approach to survivorship care has resulted in a health system wide delivery of SCPs and meeting national accreditation standards. Next steps include the evaluation of cost and clinical/patient reported outcomes.

Challenges in the implementation of survivorship care plans in an NCI-designated cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 68-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Mendelsohn ◽  
Joanne E. Mortimer ◽  
Leslie Popplewell ◽  
Lily L. Lai ◽  
Ellie Maghami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Coordinator ◽  
Nurse Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Patient Reported

68 Background: The development and initiation of Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) across all disease sites was identified as a Strategic Initiative Goals for 2015 by the Clinical Cancer Committee. The 2012 Commission on Cancer requirements for certification provided an additional incentive to meet this goal. Establishing a process that includes the development and distribution of a SCP’s within the electronic medical record (EMR) is necessary to improve on the completion of SCP’s and to improve the utilization of surveillance tests in cancer survivors. We describe the process developed at a free-standing NCI cancer center to meet the standard of SCP provision to all cancer patients. Methods: A multi-disciplinary subcommittee of the Cancer Committee was designated to develop the overall strategic plan for the implementation of this standard. It met with disease teams to facilitate a treatment summary from Cancer Registry data, identify patient reported symptoms using a self report tablet (SupportScreen). Electronic care plans were created using survivorship research program templates and ASCO framework for each disease site team. The disease team Nurse Care Coordinator inputs information into the eSCP. Results: Templates have been established within the EMR in the documents section under survivorship care plan title. These can be initiated and modified when the Nurse Care Coordinator chooses to start them. The disease teams have established their time points for SCP presentation to their patients. Using the cancer registry to provide data related to staging, treatments and genetic testing has helped minimize development time. Individual survivor’s concerns will be reflected in patient reports and physician symptom documentation. This eSCP completion process is a pilot program within the breast cancer disease team and will be expanded to include patients with head & neck and hematologic malignancies with a goal of including all patients by mid 2016. Conclusions: The goal of improving survivorship care coordination and compliance with surveillance guidelines is challenging. Maximizing available interdisciplinary resources has helped to create a viable Survivorship Care plan at our institution.

QIM19-140: A New Standard of Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. QIM19-140
Author(s):  
Bianshly Rivera Rivero ◽  
Melissa Kapsick ◽  
Smitha R. Pabbathi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Care Plans

Background: Nationally, many cancer survivors do not receive a survivorship care plan following completion of therapy. The American College of Surgeons’ Commission of Cancer’s Standard 3.3 requirement for accreditation placed this issue front and center for many of the participating cancer programs. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) survey found only one fifth of the cancer programs would be successful by 2015 and thus updated the standard in 2017. We describe a successful process created to deliver on this standard in an NCI designated cancer center to meet the needs of our patients. Methods: In early 2017, a multidisciplinary task force was created to initiate and implement survivorship care plans for newly diagnosed patients. Eligibility for care plans is determined by the CoC and the Moffitt cancer committee. The initiative included a cost-effective solution, “Journey Forward.” Moffitt Cancer Center was able to incorporate additional specific patient education and surveillance recommendations. A dedicated nursing team creating the care plans individually discussed with patients with the oversight of the Cancer Committee. Results: With collaboration from the cancer registry, nursing leadership and survivorship clinic, the diseases targeted initially were breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, head and neck, gynecology, non-small cell lung, thyroid, and lymphoma. Within 5 months of inception of the task force, 25% of survivorship care plans (SCP) were completed and by the end of the 2017 calendar year, we delivered 50% of analytic cases treated, amounting to approximately 2,500. The care plans were housed in the electronic medical record and available for patients via the patient portal. Conclusions: This initiative is made up of a multidisciplinary team from senior leadership, cancer committee members, the cancer registry, the survivorship clinic staff, nursing, social work, health information management, case management, and our information technology colleagues. A shared passion and vision lead the task force’s momentum. We all believed this was not just a mandate to comply with but a communication tool that is essential for our patients’ wellness long-term. Although there is minimal evidence to show the benefit of SCP with regard to outcomes, our team felt this document can indeed assist cancer patients’ transition into the next phase of their journey. Our project has improved the patient experience with positive feedback.

Failing to Plan Is Planning to Fail: Improving the Quality of Care With Survivorship Care Plans

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (32) ◽  
pp. 5112-5116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig C. Earle
Keyword(s):  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Premature Menopause ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Important Message ◽  
The Creation

The recent Institute of Medicine report “From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition” recommended the creation of survivorship care plans for patients as they complete primary therapy for cancer to ensure clarity for all involved about patients’ diagnoses, treatments received, and surveillance plans. Any previously existing follow-up guidelines for cancer survivors have been largely restricted to surveillance for recurrence of the primary disease. An important message of the Institute of Medicine report is that survivorship care plans must surpass this and address the chronic effects of cancer (pain, fatigue, premature menopause, depression/anxiety), monitoring for and preventing late effects like osteoporosis, heart disease, and second malignancies, and promoting healthy lifestyles. It should explicitly identify the providers responsible for each aspect of ongoing care and provide information on resources available for psychosocial and other practical issues that may arise as a result of the prior cancer diagnosis. Although having some sort of a plan is clearly necessary to achieve high quality care, there are practical barriers to formal off-treatment consultations and the creation of written documents that may become part of the medical record. This article reviews the elements of the proposed survivorship care plan and discusses areas of research and development needed to make them part of standard oncology practice.

scholarly journals Survivorship care planning in neuro-oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather E Leeper ◽  
Alvina A Acquaye ◽  
Susan Bell ◽  
Jennifer L Clarke ◽  
Deborah Forst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Time ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning

Abstract Cancer patient survivorship has become a significant topic within oncology care for both adult and pediatric patients. Starting in 2005, the Institute of Medicine recommended the use of survivorship care plans to assist patients transitioning from active treatment to the posttreatment phase of their cancer care, a critical time for many patients. Since 2014 there has been a mandate within the United States for adult cancer patients treated with curative intent to receive survivorship care plans comprised of a treatment summary and a follow-up plan to facilitate a better understanding among patients of what to expect after treatment. In addition to a general oncology survivorship care plan, specific care plans have been created for breast, lung, prostate, and colon cancers, as well as lymphoma. A survivorship care plan specific to adult neuro-oncology has been developed by a multidisciplinary and interprofessional committee, with approval from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Guidelines Committee. It has been published in compendium with this review of survivorship care planning and available as a fillable PDF on the Society of Neuro-Oncology Guidelines Endorsement web page (https://www.soc-neuro-onc.org/SNO/Resources/Survivorship_Care_Plan.aspx). Implementation of this survivorship care plan provides a unique opportunity to begin addressing the range of survivorship issues our neuro-oncology patients navigate from diagnosis to end of life.

Worldwide Use of Internet-based Survivorship Care Plans

2010 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Christine Hill-Kayser ◽  
Carolyn Vachani ◽  
Margaret K Hampshire ◽  
James M Metz ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Cancer Information ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Care Plans

Over the past decade, the world has demonstrated an increased interest in and awareness of the unique needs of cancer survivors. Survivorship care plans are a communication tool intended to provide guidelines for the healthcare of survivors as they complete active cancer care, and for the duration of their lives. The Internet represents a unique way to communicate with cancer survivors, and data from several groups indicate that increasing numbers of survivors both desire information about their care and seek this information on the Internet. A handful of US-based groups have developed Internet-based tools for the creation of survivorship care plans. The first of these, the LIVESTRONG Care Plan (www.livestrongcareplan.org), is available via theOncoLinkcancer information website based at the University of Pennsylvania. Data from the first three years since the launch of this tool demonstrate increasing use by survivors from nearly every continent, with international users accounting for 16% of total users. Data from these users also demonstrate wide variability with regard to receipt of previous survivorship information and treatment summaries based on location of residence. This variation emphasises the vital role that Internet-based survivorship care plans may continue to play in the care of survivors worldwide.

Long-term cancer survivorship care: On the radar screen?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20567-e20567
Author(s):  
Rutika Mehta ◽  
Rohit Jain ◽  
Lori Rhodes ◽  
Joseph Abraham ◽  
Kenneth David Miller
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Coordination Of Care ◽  
Long Term Effects

e20567 Background: Long-term cancer survivors require comprehensive care. The purpose of this study was to describe how survivorship care fits into oncologists’ clinical time, and characterize long-term cancer survivors’ problems and oncology follow-up care. Methods: We abstracted 18,882 medical records of unique cancer patient visits during 2010 at a major NCI-designated cancer center and then evaluated survivor care for one week in April, 2010 to characterize how oncologists spend their clinical time. Finally, we selected three subgroups from the survivor population (n≈100 each) of survivors at 1-5 years, 6-10 years, and >10 years after diagnosis. We collected demographic data, purpose of visit, cancer-specific information, late and long-term effects, and type of care delivered, including surveillance for recurrence, intervention, prevention, and coordination of care. Results: In the larger group of 18,882, only 14% of survivors were more than 10 years post-diagnosis. Approximately two-thirds of the survivors were women. Breast cancer survivors comprised 38%, and survivors of hematologic malignancies accounted for 21% of the population. During the one week studied, the majority of oncologists' patients (74%) were actively receiving treatment; only 5% of their patients were 5 or more years post-diagnosis. Second or secondary malignancies were noted in 8% of patients. Late and long-term effects were uncommon. Approximately 25% of survivors beyond five years were observed to have late effects due to cancer treatment, most common being fatigue, neurological endocrine, and cardiac. Of the 300 selected survivors, sixty-two percent received only surveillance care during their visit. Only 3% of these patients received an entire array of survivorship care that included surveillance, intervention, co-ordination and prevention. Conclusions: A small proportion of oncologists’ visits were with long-term cancer survivors (5-14%) of whom only 25% had late or long-term effects of cancer treatment so overall very few of office visits were with long-term survivors who had late and long-term complications. All visits involved surveillance for cancer recurrence but there was little focus on prevention, intervention, and coordination of care for cancer survivors.

Systematic development of a a breast cancer survivorship program at a small independent oncology practice.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 52-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Rogers ◽  
Shailesh R. Satpute
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Plans

52 Background: It is widely accepted that providing survivorship care plans leads to improvements in outcomes for cancer survivors. Treatment summaries are now part of ASCO and NCCN survivorship guidelines. We faced a unique challenge of implementing the survivorship care plan at the Jones Clinic as a small independent practice. The Jones Clinic consists of three full time physicians and two full time nurse practitioners. We see approximately 850 new patients per year. Methods: As a part of ASCO’s quality training program, we focused on the stage I – III (early stage) breast cancer patients who completed their initial therapy. We formed a team, identified the barriers, created a flow diagram of the process, assigned roles for each individual member and finally implemented the process. Results: The major issues identified were lack of provision in the electronic medical record (EMR) system for survivorship and lack of standardized data entry process. We created a system in the EMR for survivorship data entry and extraction of such data in a document. Since July 2015, one hundred percent of breast cancer patients completing adjuvant therapy at the Jones Clinic have received a survivorship treatment summary and a plan of care. The care plan is also shared with their primary care provider. Importantly, creating a survivorship document required less than 10 minutes of the provider’s time. Conclusions: We are now able to provide our patients with a survivorship care plan and address survivorship issues within thirty days of completion of therapy. Creating the care plan requires minimal time from the providers. Our new process meets ASCO guidelines for survivorship care plans and no additional staffing was needed. We now plan to provide a survivorship care plan to all oncology patients treated with curative intent.

Variations in recommended surveillance in colorectal cancer survivorship care plans.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Alaina Chodoff ◽  
Katherine Clegg Smith ◽  
Aishwarya Shukla ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Nita Ahuja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Center Frequency ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Follow Up Care

13 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) outline pertinent information about a cancer survivor’s treatment and follow-up care. We describe the content of colorectal cancer (CRC) SCPs, completed as part of a randomized controlled trial of SCPs, and evaluate whether follow-up recommendations are guideline concordant. Methods: We analyzed 74 CRC SCPs from an academic and community cancer center. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for the entire cohort and separately by recruiting site. Follow-up recommendations were compared to American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (Table). Results: Content routinely provided in SCPs (>80%) included patient demographics, cancer diagnosis, treatment details (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy) as well as treatment-related side effects. SCP content specified less frequently included cancer stage, cancer risk (predisposing conditions), and recommendations for genetic counseling/testing and health promotion. Nearly all SCPs from the community site provided uniform, guideline-concordant follow-up. At the academic site, on average, more than 15 follow-up recommendations were listed for each surveillance modality, except colonoscopy. Among the SCPs that specified the frequency of follow-up care, the rate of guideline-concordant recommendations was 15/42 (36%) for follow-up visits, 29/43 (67%) for imaging, 12/45 (27%) for laboratory and 39/39 (100%) for colonoscopy. Conclusions: SCPs consistently provided information about CRC diagnosis and treatment, but often omitted information about cancer risk, staging and prognosis. There was considerable variation between cancer centers in the follow-up recommendations suggested for CRC survivors. Future work to improve the consistency of SCP follow-up recommendations with guidelines may be needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03035773 . [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document