Enhancing cancer survivorship through improved provider communication, care coordination, and professional education.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 104-104
Author(s):  
John M. Daly ◽  
Alan G. Howald ◽  
Kelly Ann Filchner ◽  
Bonnie J. Miller ◽  
Leanne Lyons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pilot Phase

104 Background: Care coordination among oncology and primary care physicians (PCPs) is an essential element of survivorship care. Providers at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center noted gaps in coordinating care with PCPs. We sought to develop a program that enhances communication and education between provider groups to ensure a seamless continuum of care thereby improving overall survivorship care. Methods: The Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Care Connect program was created to comprehensively connect PCPs in the regional service area with cancer center providers. Program participation requirements for PCP’s include attendance at 2 of 4 targeted professional education programs and participation in quality measures for breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening. Formalized processes to efficiently move patients between oncologists and PCP’s were established. Communication gaps were addressed by providing electronic access via a secure physician portal, access to FCCC disease navigation services, and establishment of designated referral navigators to coordinate clinical needs between provider groups. Results: FCCC initiated the Care Connect program with 5 PCP practices. During a 3 month pilot phase, FCCC directed 19 patients to Care Connect PCP’s to manage ongoing clinical needs and implement survivorship plans. Eight-six percent of referrals were classified as non-urgent. Median time from referral to PCP appointment was 16 days, 24% below regional average. One CME education program was conducted during the pilot phase. Of the attendees, 91% reported an intent to change current practice by implementing a new procedure, discussing new information or seek additional information. Attendees identified potential care barriers which will be included in future program development. Post-education, one practice referred 3 patients to the lung cancer screening program. Conclusions: A formal program that aligns PCPs and oncologists is an effective initiative to improve communication and awareness of cancer patient survivorship needs in oncology and primary care settings.

Implementation of a novel primary care-centered clinic for survivorship care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 41-41
Author(s):  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
Youngjee Choi ◽  
Zackary Berger ◽  
Craig Evan Pollack ◽  
Sydney Morss Dy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers

41 Background: Patients often face challenges in transitioning to the survivorship stage of cancer care and coordinating with primary care. Prior research has highlighted the uncertainty in who provides survivorship care, leaving patients “lost in transition”. Integrating primary care providers (PCP) into cancer care offers one potential solution. Expanding traditional PCP roles to participating throughout the cancer continuum and familiarizing PCPs with cancer patients’ needs can address this gap. We describe an innovative model of incorporating PCPs to delivering primary care to cancer survivors at a large academic institution. Methods: As one part of a plan to address an identified need for improving survivorship care for cancer patients at Johns Hopkins, PCPs and cancer survivorship care experts developed the Primary Care for Cancer Survivors clinic (PCCS) in 11/2015. The clinic receives referrals from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center and patients are seen for either a one-time consultation or can transition their primary care to the clinic. We also are creating a database of internal and external referrals to meet the specific needs identified by patients. We descriptively analyzed the utilization of PCCS from 11/2015 through 9/2016. Results: A total of 35 patients have been seen at PCCS. The average age of patients was 56.8 (SD 12.4) and 32 were female and 3 were male. 24 patients identified as white, 8 black, 1 Asian, and 2 others. Most patients transitioned their PC to the clinic (n = 30). The majority of patients had breast (n = 19) and colorectal cancer (n = 5); 10 patients had metastatic disease (3 have deceased). Commonly, referrals were made to physical therapy, including pelvic rehabilitation and lymphedema management, and nutrition counseling. Conclusions: Patients with a wide variety of cancers and at all stages of disease were seen for survivorship care in the PCCS clinic. Integrating nutrition care, psychosocial support, exercise programs, and palliative care were key early factors in meeting patients’ needs. Continuing to assess and meet survivors’ individual needs and build referral networks are important next steps in the development of the clinic.

Delivery of survivorship care from rural primary care and oncology practices.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 85-85
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Klemp ◽  
Becky N. Lowry ◽  
Judy A Johnston ◽  
Kyla Alsman ◽  
Danielle Peereboom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Rural Primary Care ◽  
Education Of Patients ◽  
Office Management ◽  
Primary Care Practices

85 Background: While evidence-based guidelines for survivorship care exist, implementation in oncology and primary care practices has fallen short. There is little evidence of the barriers preventing successful implementation in rural primary care and oncology practices. We sought to assess knowledge gaps and barriers to successful implementation of evidence-based survivorship care guidelines in rural Kansas practices. Methods: Midwest Cancer Alliance, outreach arm of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, and Kansas Patients and Providers Engaged in Prevention Research, completed interviews in rural primary care and oncology practices. Results: Primary Care (n=7) and Oncology Practices (n=4): Interviews with primary care physicians, medical oncologists, advanced practice providers, nurses, tumor registrar, outreach coordinator, and office management & staff. Conclusions: Rural primary care and oncology practices experienced barriers to delivering survivorship care including: educational gaps, communication of history, treatment, and recommendations, EHR integration, and lack of resources. Next steps focus on a unified approach to state-wide survivorship education of patients, primary care and oncology practices. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Views on Survivorship Care Plans Generated by an Electronic Health Record System

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e329-e335 ◽  
Author(s):  
SarahMaria Donohue ◽  
Mary E. Sesto ◽  
David L. Hahn ◽  
Kevin A. Buhr ◽  
Elizabeth A. Jacobs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Health Record ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Record System ◽  
Care Plans

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.

scholarly journals Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 3408-3419
Author(s):  
Dominique Tremblay ◽  
Nassera Touati ◽  
Karine Bilodeau ◽  
Catherine Prady ◽  
Susan Usher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation ◽  
Cancer Specialists ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

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.

Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a cancer survivorship care delivery intervention.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Birken ◽  
Alexandra Peluso ◽  
Cheyenne Wagi ◽  
Stacy Wentworth ◽  
Kathryn E. Weaver
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Health Maintenance ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Oncology Providers

19 Background: A large and rapidly increasing number of US cancer survivors who have completed active treatment continue to seek oncology care. Low-risk survivors who continue to seek oncology care incur greater costs but experience worse care quality and outcomes than those who seek primary care. In this study, we assessed the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of START (Supporting Transitions AfteR Treatment), a theory-driven, stakeholder-engaged intervention intended to improve the transition of low-risk survivors to primary care. Methods: To pilot START, beginning in August 2020, we engaged oncology providers (n = 5) and staff (n = 4) at a small community affiliate of our academic comprehensive cancer center. We worked with a nurse navigator, office manager, and physician champion to refine START’s content and delivery to accommodate the needs of a busy community cancer center. We queried electronic health records (EHRs) to assess the feasibility of identifying low-risk survivors and measuring key outcomes (i.e., receipt of recommended health maintenance services). In a formal meeting, we introduced providers to START and helped them to identify survivors whom they agreed should be transitioned to primary care. Front desk staff flagged these survivors to remind providers to transition them in upcoming appointments. Beginning in July 2021, we will conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with oncology providers and staff and survivors regarding their perspectives on START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results: We successfully identified survivors using EHRs and engaged the nurse navigator and providers in identifying the subset of survivors whom they deemed eligible for transitioning to primary care. Preliminary results indicate that START helped providers to transition eligible survivors to primary care. We have successfully engaged cancer center data managers in measuring relevant outcomes using EHRs. Informal provider and staff feedback suggests that START is an acceptable, appropriate, and feasible approach to transitioning survivors. Conclusions: At the conference, we will report on oncology provider and staff and survivor perceptions of START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for improving survivorship care delivery and preliminary findings regarding START’s effectiveness in increasing survivors’ receipt of recommended health maintenance services. Findings will be used to refine START and form the basis of a clinical trial to evaluate its effectiveness in improving survivorship outcomes.

Gaps in survivorship care plan delivery and potential benefits to survivorship care.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9594-9594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pence Forsythe ◽  
Carla Parry ◽  
Catherine M. Alfano ◽  
Erin E. Kent ◽  
Corinne Leach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Physician Attitudes ◽  
Physician Communication ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Treatment Summary

9594 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs), consisting of a treatment summary and follow-up plan, are intended to promote coordination of post-treatment cancer care. Yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care. Methods: A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (N=1130) and primary care physicians (PCPs; N=1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors using the cross-sectional Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors (SPARCCS) in 2009. Results: Nearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, while 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries, while 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (p<0.05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician-physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (p<0.05). Conclusions: Providing SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician-physician communication, and PCP confidence in caring for survivors. However, a minority of oncologists report routinely delivering SCPs to PCPs. Considerable progress will be necessary to achieve sharing of SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.

Racial disparities in survivorship care adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Ravi Bharat Parikh ◽  
Sumedha Chhatre ◽  
S. Bruce Malkowicz ◽  
Bingnan Li ◽  
Ravishankar Jayadevappa
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
African American Men ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Mineral Density

72 Background: African-American men with prostate cancer have higher cancer-related and all-cause mortality than their Caucasian counterparts. Differences in adherence to guideline-based survivorship care may contribute to these disparities. Methods: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men ≥66 years old treated for localized prostate cancer between 2008 and 2011 who had at least two visits with a specialist or primary care physician after diagnosis. Patients were followed until 2013. We calculated rates of bone mineral density screening (among men treated with androgen deprivation therapy) and colorectal cancer screening after diagnosis, stratified by race and provider seen. We analyzed the association between continuity of care (CoC) and adherence to colorectal cancer screening after calculating a CoC index. Results: Among 107262 men with localized prostate cancer, adherence to colorectal cancer and bone mineral density screening was higher for Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic men compared to African-American men (Table). Adherence to screening was slightly higher for men who followed with primary care physicians compared to specialists. After adjusting for relevant covariates and number of providers, higher CoC with primary care physicians was associated with improved adherence to colorectal screening among Non-Hispanic Whites (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.11-1.40), African-Americans (OR = 1.39, CI = 1.05-1.84) and Hispanics (OR = 2.74, CI = 1.27-5.90). However, higher CoC with specialists was significantly associated with colon cancer screening only among African Americans (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25-2.04). Conclusions: Among a large cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, the association between CoC and guideline-based survivorship care varied by type of provider and by racial and ethnic group. [Table: see text]

Streamlining survivorship care plan (SCP) creation and delivery to primary care providers in poor, rural, and minority patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24181-e24181
Author(s):  
Bernard Tawfik ◽  
Shoshana Adler Jaffe ◽  
Jamina Oomen-Hajagos ◽  
Lisa Mohler ◽  
Inigo San Gil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Record ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Definitive Therapy

e24181 Background: The number of cancer survivors is rapidly climbing due to increased screening and improved treatment. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPS) summarize the patients’ treatment and is a communication tool between oncologists and primary care physicians (PCP)s. Creation and delivery of the SCPs has been labor intensive and costly for many healthcare systems and a previous paper based system at our institution was ineffective. The University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNMCCC) treats a unique population of lower socioeconomic status (SES) (poverty rate 19.7%), rural (22.6%) and minority (Native Americans and Hispanics constitute 10.4% and 48% of the population respectively) patients in a large rural state. Methods: Beginning March 2019, UNMCCC initiated a process for creation and delivery of SCPs through the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). EMRs are not designed to delivery SCPs to patients and PCPs, so EMR functions were creatively repurposed. Upon identification of eligible patients, providers would place an electronic SCP order through the EMR. Designated staff then partially completes the SCPs based on medical record review while the EMR imports demographics, PCP, cancer and stage. Then the EMR flags SCPs ready for delivery and the provider edits, approves and prints the SCP for the patient at the next encounter. Once printed, the EMR alerts medical records to send the SCP to the PCP via mail or EMR routing. Results: 282 SCPs were ordered, 222 (78.7%) were created and 86 (38.7%) given to patients after definitive therapy of Breast (77.9%), Colorectal (7.0%), Gynecological (9.3%) and Prostate Cancer (5.8%). Of 72 SCPs eligible to be sent to PCPs, 48 (66.7%) were successfully mailed or sent via EMR, 13 (18.1%) had PCP discrepancies, 6 (8.3%) had no PCP and 5 (6.9%) had PCPs in systems which do not accept unsolicited records. Conclusions: The UNMCCC cares for low SES, rural and minority patients and was able to create and deliver SCPs to a significant number of patients and PCPs. Future process steps will involve creating tailored SCPs for other diagnoses, resolving PCP discrepancy issues and creating an EMR alert for PCPs when they receive an SCP. Additionally, assessment of both patient and PCP perceptions is ongoing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document