Survivorship care plan (SCP) program development within a large hospital network.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 42-42
Author(s):  
Natalie Garces ◽  
Tara Eaton ◽  
Beth York ◽  
Chasse Margot Bailey-Dorton ◽  
Wendy G. Brick
Keyword(s):  
Program Development ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Large Hospital ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Hospital Networks ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning

42 Background: Barriers to SCP delivery are pervasive, with limited data available on strategies to address implementation barriers. Despite the variety of models for SCP-based survivorship care planning, there is a dearth of studies on SCP program development for larger hospital networks. Large networked hospital systems, including the Levine Cancer Institute (LCI), have unique challenges for implementing a SCP program. Methods: Beginning in 2014, LCI implemented a process for delivery of SCPs across its network of 8 Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals. Obstacles to implementation were evaluated and methods of establishing procedures for insuring SCP delivery were reviewed. Improvement in SCP delivery was measured over 3 years. SCP program development involved leveraging technology, developing processes for identifying eligible survivors, and engaging providers and practice managers in this key organizational initiative. Results: In 2014, the SCP program consisted of 3 advanced care providers (ACPs) in 3 LCI medical oncology clinics, delivering SCPs to 67 (2%) of the eligible 3,336 survivors. In the second year of implementation, 14 ACPs and 4 MDs delivered 348 (11%) SCPs to eligible survivors in 14 LCI clinics. By the end of the 2016 calendar year, it is estimated that > 1,029 SCPs ( > 25%) of eligible survivors will receive a SCP throughout the LCI hospital network. Conclusions: While challenging to deliver, SCPs are important both for cancer program accreditation and for communication between patients and physicians. At its large, multi-center cancer program, LCI has implemented a number of methods and protocols to insure that eligible patients receive informative and timely SCPs. LCI’s processes have resulted in an improvement in the number of SCPs delivered and have also served to eliminate obstacles to increasing the number of SCPs that will be delivered in the future. It is recommended that oncology practices consider the methods and interventions that LCI found helpful to improve SCP delivery in large hospital networks. It is also encouraged that oncology practices to continue to share their methods with other centers to promote eventual SCP delivery to eligible survivors.

Enhancing provider engagement and accountability: A strategy for survivorship care plan implementation within a large hospital network.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Natalie Garces ◽  
Tara Eaton ◽  
Daisuke Goto
Keyword(s):  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Large Hospital ◽  
Plan Implementation ◽  
Hospital Networks ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
Poster Presentations ◽  
To Receive

56 Background: Challenges to Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) implementation persist and guidelines to facilitate provider engagement and accountability are needed. In 2014, Levine Cancer Institute (LCI), part of one of the largest Commission on Cancer (COC) hospital networks, instituted a SCP delivery model. The patient’s LCI or LCI-affiliated physician or advanced care provider (ACP) is responsible to create and deliver the SCP. This presentation updates and extends prior work presented at the 2017 ASCO Cancer Survivorship Symposium to demonstrate the utility of enhanced provider engagement and accountability in SCP program expansion at LCI. Methods: The Survivorship Section partnered with the Cancer Committee to develop a system to enhance provider engagement and accountability. Strategies to improve engagement included: emailed SCP metrics (monthly goals and volume reports) and poster presentations to demonstrate SCP value to Tumor Site Section Leaders (TSSLs), administrators and providers. Strategies to promote accountability included: (1) partnered with TSSLs to clarify SCP eligibility criteria, set monthly goals and identify methods to optimize delivery; (2) discussed SCP metrics within each TSSL to highlight participation rates of providers or clinics; (3) presented Section- and clinic-specific SCP performance at quarterly Cancer Committee, National Accreditation Program for Breast Cancer leadership and Operational meetings; and (4) required all newly hired outpatient ACPs to receive SCP training and included SCP delivery in yearly ACP goals. Results: Since 2014, the total number of SCPs, participating providers, clinics and cancer types has grown 25-, 17-, 7- and 22-fold, respectively. Conclusions: LCI developed a multilayer partnership strategy that enhanced engagement and accountability at the leadership and provider level. This partnership significantly increased numbers of SCPs delivered over four years and allowed us to meet COC goals. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Correction to: Survivorship Care Plan Implementation in US Cancer Programs: a National Survey of Cancer Care Providers

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Birken ◽  
Sarah Raskin ◽  
Yuqing Zhang ◽  
Gema Lane ◽  
Alexandra Zizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Plan Implementation

scholarly journals Development and evaluation of a bladder Cancer specific survivorship care plan by patients and clinical care providers: a multi-methods approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl T. Lee ◽  
Nihal E. Mohamed ◽  
Sailaja Pisipati ◽  
Qainat N. Shah ◽  
Piyush K. Agarwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers

Leveraging the electronic health record (EHR) to support survivorship care planning for bone marrow transplant (BMT) survivors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Mandy Swiecichowski ◽  
Amye Tevaarwerk ◽  
Mark Juckett ◽  
James Edward Haine ◽  
Kirsten Norslien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Survivorship Care Planning

57 Background: BMT survivors are underrepresented in survivorship research, yet are at high risk for complications. Practice guidelines are vague, non-BMT clinicians are inadequately informed, and communication between BMT and non-BMT clinicians is inconsistent. Our objective is to develop EHR-integrated survivorship care planning that is user-centered, supports non-BMT clinician and survivor needs, but does not adversely impact clinical workflow. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of clinicians (primary care, oncology, BMT), engineers, and EHR analysts used a systems engineering approach to identify barriers and facilitators to BMT survivorship care planning. The team identified patient data categories to include in BMT survivorship care plan (SCP) templates, as well as examined tasks, technology, workflows and individual roles and responsibilities necessary to support care planning. Results: Facilitators include: potential for EHR to discretely capture individual diagnosis and treatment data to create accurate SCPs addressing survivor and primary care information needs. Barriers are: lack of EHR inter-operability which prevents sharing of patient data outside the BMT center’s EHR system, reliance on manual entry of critical data elements into the SCP (i.e. majority of the 88 patient data categories, identified by the team, are non-discrete in the EHR), inefficient or absent survivorship workflows, lack of resources (including time, dedicated clinical staff, space, SCP content), poorly defined roles and responsibilities for survivorship care provision, and lack of evidence-based BMT survivorship guidelines. Conclusions: Work system barriers impede use of the EHR to support survivorship care planning. Steps to overcome barriers: design discrete fields in the EHR to support patient-level data capture, re-engineer existing workflows to support survivorship care planning, obtain BMT program consensus on SCP content, and evaluate user-centeredness of SCPs. This research has the potential to improve feasibility and sustainability of survivorship care planning activities, resulting in improved communication and care coordination for BMT survivors.

Determinants of survivorship care plan implementation in U.S. cancer programs.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Birken ◽  
Deborah Mayer ◽  
Bryan Weiner ◽  
Allison Mary Deal
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Program Type ◽  
Adoption And Implementation

78 Background: The Institute of Medicine recommended and many professional societies require survivorship care plan (SCP) use to facilitate cancer survivors’ transition from treatment to follow-up care. Rates of SCP adoption (plans to use SCPs) and implementation (current use) in US cancer programs remain unclear. Our objectives were to (1) assess rates of SCP adoption and implementation and (2) determine what distinguishes cancer programs that have implemented SCPs from those that have not moved beyond adoption. Methods: We surveyed employees knowledgeable about SCP adoption and implementation in a nationally representative sample of 100 US cancer programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results: The response rate was 80%. Ninety-six percent of programs adopted SCPs, but only 45% implemented SCPs. Among programs that implemented, SCP use remains inconsistent: Use is restricted primarily to breast (81.58%) and colorectal (55.26%) cancer survivors; in 58.33% of these programs, less than a quarter of providers has ever used SCPs; and SCPs are seldom delivered to survivors or their primary care providers. Employees in many programs indicated that SCPs were adopted because of the belief that SCPs would improve care quality and the release of professional society guidelines; however, neither of these factors influenced SCP implementation. Few quality markers (e.g., NCI-designated program type; Commission on Cancer membership) influenced SCP implementation. Determinants of SCP implementation included teaching hospital program type (p = .04) and NCCCP membership (p = .009). Freestanding facility type had a negative relationship with SCP implementation (p = .02). Conclusions: Given inconclusive evidence of SCPs’ effectiveness in improving care coordination and patient outcomes, many scholars have recently advocated for research to promote SCPs’ effectiveness. These efforts may be in vain if SCPs are not more routinely implemented. Efforts should be targeted at enabling programs to implement quality improvement tools. Future research should determine what promotes SCP implementation among teaching hospitals and NCCCP members, and what inhibits freestanding facilities from implementing SCPs.

The Commission on Cancer’s survivorship care plan standard: Implementation is underway.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Nina S. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Psychosocial Needs ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Centered Care

72 Background: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer established a patient-centered standard regarding the delivery of a survivorship care plan to cancer patients. In response to recommendations from the 2006 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, a working group developed a set of Continuum of Care standards to address the psychosocial needs of cancer patients. In 2009 Commission on Cancer members had met to discuss a strategic plan for addressing a major shift in accreditation standards from process to patient-centered care with a focus on patient outcomes. According to Cancer Program Standards: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care, the cancer program must implement a process to disseminate a comprehensive care summary and follow-up plan to patients with cancer who are completing cancer treatment. Programs are in full implementation mode and surveys monitoring this Survivorship Care Plan Standard have begun this year. The care plan provides guidance and recommendations for survivors and their healthcare providers to address the medical and psychosocial problems that may arise post-treatment. By delivering a plan, the patient is empowered with information about the treatment they have received, the recommendations for their care going forward, and recommended resources. Methods: Programs submit documentation to describe their process for delivery of care through an electronic activity report. Documentation of this standard includes method of delivery, identification of eligible patients, implementation process and tracking. This presentation will summarize program submissions for 2015-2016 and include an analysis of the details of the standard compliance as reported by accredited programs. Results: This analysis will include responses from all Commission on Cancer accredited programs reporting on this standard. The analysis will provide information about the trends in program implementation and compliance with the standard. Conclusions: This analysis will inform future decisions about the content of plans, the value of plan delivery to the provider and to the patient and summarize current practice.

scholarly journals Passport for Care: Implementing the Survivorship Care Plan

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc E. Horowitz ◽  
Michael Fordis ◽  
Susan Krause ◽  
Julie McKellar ◽  
David G. Poplack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Long Term Survivors

Approximately 12,000 children in the United States are diagnosed with cancer each year, and roughly 75% of these patients become long-term survivors. The Passport for Care was developed to support these survivors and their health care providers.

Cancer team approach for prescreening and identifying breast cancer survivors as part of survivorship care plan implementation.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Oana Cristina Danciu ◽  
Sushma Bharadwaj ◽  
Kent Hoskins
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Chi Square Analysis ◽  
Treatment Summary

107 Background: Recommendations from the Institute of Medicine are that cancer patients receive individualized survivorship care plan (SCP)and treatment summary.SCP includes guidelines for monitoring and maintaining health and is a communication tool shared with families and health care providers. Offering SCP and treatment summary to cancer survivors remains challenging due to time and resource limitations, inadequate reimbursement and survivor access. Methods: Survivorship starts when completing the initial treatment (surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy). A team of medical oncologists, nurse practitioner and patient navigator created a process of pre-screening and identifying breast cancer (BC) survivors. SCP and treatment summary were pre-populated, individualized for each patient, then finalized and discussed with the patients during their medical oncology clinic visit.Pre intervention data was retrospectively collected, including all BC cases from March 2014 to March 2015. Post intervention data was prospectively collected over eight weeks. Pre and post intervention SCP completion rates were compared with chi square analysis. Results: A baseline one year review of 1124 encounters noted 23 of 90 (25%) BC survivors received SCP. Ninety-six encounters occurred during the 8 week pilot period. Sixteen (16.6%) cases met the definition of BC survivor. During the pilot period, 15 out of 16 (93.7%) survivors received the SCP and treatment summary (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: We successfully piloted the implementation of SCP for BC survivors. Our team found that using clinic visit screening and pre-identifying patients that transition into the survivorship program resulted in improvement of compliance with survivorship measures. We plan to open a BC survivorship clinic to address survivorship issues and to review SCP and treatment summary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document