The use of electronic health record systems to create treatment summaries and survivorship care plans.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
David K Choi ◽  
Patricia Chapman ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Electronic Health

56 Background: The Commission on Cancer’s recent mandate stated that accredited programs issue treatment summaries (TSs) with survivorship follow-up care plans (SCPs). ASCO’s model of survivorship care also supports the use of these documents. One of the primary purposes of the documents is to enhance coordination and communication between the oncology team and primary care providers. Here we describe the experience of a survivorship program in using electronic health records (EHR) to develop TSs and SCPs. Methods: An interdisciplinary team at an academic cancer center was appointed to develop clinical tools to facilitate the creation and dissemination of TSs and SCPs. Enhancements were made to an institutional off-the-shelf EHR system that automatically populated available treatment information to the TS. This system used SmartLinks to pull data from the primary source of entry (e.g. surgical history, chemotherapy administered, and cancer stage). Clinicians edited and added pertinent information not automatically generated using one of the 19 disease-specific templates that provided lists of common treatments for various cancers. Electronic routing functions existed to share TSs with external providers through the medical records department. Results: From March-Sept, 2016, 766 SCP were completed by 50 providers in 14 clinics. Reports were created in the EHR to track SCPs and TS metrics. Data was reported from the TS on both a patient level and aggregate level by provider and clinic. Patient level data allowed providers to track incomplete TSs and edit them directly from the report. Of the TSs completed, 528 (69%) have been shared with patients and 261 (34%) have been shared with their community-based providers. Conclusions: EHRs provide a mechanism to successfully create and share TSs and SCPs among team members and primary care providers. They promote patient-provider education and communication about follow-up care. Research is needed to determine how they enhance coordination and ultimately outcomes for long-term survivors.

Engaging a statewide network to expand survivorship care to rural and urban cancer survivors.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Klemp ◽  
Carol Bush ◽  
Ashley Spaulding ◽  
Hope Krebill ◽  
Gary C. Doolittle
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
The State ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans

23 Background: Advances have been made in elevating cancer survivorship as a public health priority and defining elements needed to deliver high-quality follow-up care to survivors. However, a lack of research on how best to care for survivors and the most effective and efficient strategies for delivering survivorship care in the community setting still exists. We report our assessment of the current state of practice, knowledge and professional development, and plan to increase access to care of urban and rural practices across the state of Kansas. Methods: In 2014, the Midwest Cancer Alliance (MCA), a membership-based outreach arm of The University of Kansas Cancer Center, convened an educational summit and survey to assess the survivorship landscape in Kansas. Post-summit, individual interviews were conducted. Survey and interviews included questions regarding health records, treatment summaries, survivorship care plans (SCP), availability of survivorship programs and resources, access to primary care and specialists, distress screening, community support, and educational needs. Results: Ten MCA member health systems were invited to participate and 7 indicated interest in participating in the project. Only one organization provided an SCP to survivors. Barriers included lack of an integrated approach and knowledge. A majority of survivorship care could be delivered close to home, however, services including fertility preservation, genetic counseling, oncology rehab, sexual health, and second opinions, required travel of more than 50 miles. Identified educational needs focused on comprehensive survivorship care across the health care team. Conclusions: Survivorship care remains fragmented across the state of Kansas. Based on this project, we have secured a CDC survivorship grant that will facilitate clinical and technical assistance related to process improvement and electronic health record integration focused on survivorship care and delivery of an SCP. Next steps include engaging primary care providers and survivors to assure the SCP meets the needs of stakeholders. This work will focus on a translational process to meet the growing needs of the survivors and complex health care organizations.

Factors influencing the use of electronic health record systems to provide follow-up care to cancer survivors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 182-182
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Rachel Harris ◽  
Lewis E. Foxhall
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Electronic Health

182 Background: One of the expected benefits of electronic health records (EHRs) is their interoperability to remotely access and exchange clinical information across systems and clinicians. Cancer survivors’ treatment summaries (TSs) and care plans (CPs) are documents that can be electronically transferred from oncologists to primary care providers. We conducted a needs assessment to identify factors which influenced EHRs in meeting these expectations in rural and underserved primary care settings. Methods: Clinicians from 2 family practice health care systems, located in central and northeast Texas were surveyed. REDCap, a web-based system, was used to develop, manage, and distribute the survey to a convenience sample of clinical staff from both settings. Survey questions focused on respondents’ demographic and clinical practice characteristics, current experience with TSs and CPs, and type of EHR used. Results: A total of 26 surveys were included in this analysis. Respondents were primarily physicians (73%). Overall 61.5% reported that ≤ 25% of their patients were diagnosed with cancer or currently had cancer. A patient’s self-report was the primary method used by majority of respondents to determine if a patient had a history of cancer. 80.8% indicated they would be interested in learning more about the use and development of TSs and CPs. Barriers reported towards the use of EHRs to deliver TSs and CPs included: EHRs interference with workflow (60%); limited knowledge on how to develop TSs and CPs (48%), inadequate access to IT resources (48%), and inefficient EHR systems (44%). In these settings, EHRs used were: Epic (61.6%), Aria (30.8%), and Medit (7.7%). Respondents’ comments on EHRs weaknesses included: “the two systems…do not completely communicate with each other” or “no place where a cancer treatment summary or survivorship plan is documented”. Conclusions: Primary care providers identified limitations in EHR operability as a major barrier to retrieving health information required for TSs and CPs. Clinicians in rural or underserved regions may benefit from education and retraining in EHR systems.

Evaluation of coordination of cancer care between designated cancer hospitals and primary care providers: Results from a nationwide survey in Japan.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Taro Tomizuka ◽  
Tomone Watanabe ◽  
Satoru Kamitani ◽  
Takahiro Higashi
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Critical Path ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Cancer Specialist

84 Background: To improve coordination of cancer care between cancer specialist hospitals and primary care providers (PCPs), the Japanese government accredited cancer specialist hospitals, so called “designated cancer care hospitals (DCCHs)” and introduced “Cancer care coordination instruction fee” which PCPs can receive if they share a cancer critical path (Japanese version of Survivorship Care Plans) of each cancer patient with DCCHs. We sought to assess the current status of coordination of cancer care in Japan and communication between DCCHs and PCPs from PCPs’ point of view. Methods: A cross-sectional mail survey was administered to randomly selected clinic-based PCPs (4,000 clinics) from a nation-wide database of medical institutions authorized by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Japan to treat patients with health insurance (87,869 clinics). The survey evaluated how much PCPs provided cancer follow-up care and how well DCCHs coordinated care and communicated with PCPs in cancer survivorship. Results: 1,873 PCPs returned the questionnaire (response rate: 46.8%). 1,223 (65.3%) answered to provide cancer follow-up care in outpatient setting. Most of the PCPs which provided cancer follow-up care evaluated the care coordination and support by DCCHs were satisfactory (946, 77.4%) but the degree of good evaluation varied by region (highest: 91.3%, lowest: 45.8%). In regression analysis, provision of palliative care by PCPs (OR 1.52 95%CI 1.05-2.17) and use of cancer critical path (OR 2.10 95%CI 1.63-2.71) were significantly correlated with better evaluation of communication and care coordination. Conclusions: DCCHs communicated well with PCPs and PCPs were satisfied with the communication and care coordination by DCCHs. Provision of palliative care by PCPs and use of cancer critical path are likely to lead good care coordination in cancer care.

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 Preferences for Physician Roles in Follow-up Care During Survivorship: Do Patients, Primary Care Providers, and Oncologists Agree?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
M. Chandler McLeod ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
Steven J. Katz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Physician Roles

Survivorship care plans: Is there buy-in from oncology providers?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Talya Salz ◽  
Erin Onstad ◽  
Mary S. McCabe ◽  
Shrujal S. Baxi ◽  
Richard L. Deming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Ongoing Care ◽  
Oncology Providers ◽  
To Receive

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.

Shared Care For Hematologic Malignancy Survivors: Challenges Between Primary Care Physicians and Hematologist/Oncologists

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2958-2958
Author(s):  
Haleh Kadkhoda ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Emily Van Laar ◽  
Elisa Weiss ◽  
Kevin C. Oeffinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans

Abstract Background Many cancer patients are cured, or have a series of remissions interspersed with periods of re-treatment. In 2006, the Institute of Medicine's From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition recommended comprehensive treatment summaries and follow-up care plans for all cancer survivors. [Parry 2013] There were about 14 million cancer survivors in the US as of January 2012; this population is expected to be 18 million by 2022. [Siegel 2012] Among survivors, 64% have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. [de Moor 2013] Many survivors in this growing population experience physical, psychological, and/or financial long-term/ late effects. The complexities of managing cancer survivors suggest their care should not be conceived as a transition from the hematologist/oncologist to the primary care provider, but rather as an ongoing, flexible collaboration determined by individual survivor needs. Methods Polling surveys were conducted within the 2012 online education activity Sharing Care for Survivors of Hematologic Malignancies, developed by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and Medscape Oncology. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologists (Hem/Oncs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) to illustrate effective communication methods and critical communication points between (Hem/Oncs) and (PCPs). Results As of June 30, 116 Hem/Oncs and 171 PCPs overall responded to the polling surveys, which address current practices and barriers in shared care of cancer survivors. Responses were analyzed to identify gaps in continuity of care among specialties. A summary of responses shows the most significant barrier in effective management is the lack of survivorship care plans and treatment summaries (41% Hem/Oncs vs 51% PCPs). Only 8% and 5% of Hem/Oncs and PCPs, respectively, use survivorship care plans, although both Hem/Oncs and PCPs agreed that such plans and summaries are the most useful communication vehicle among professionals (73% Hem/Oncs vs 67% PCPs). PCPs used patient self-reported data more frequently to document cancer treatment, compared with Hem/Oncs (21% vs 7%, respectively); Hem/Oncs used caregiver reports more often than did PCPs (12% vs 3%, respectively). Similar numbers of Hem/Oncs and PCPs estimated that PCPs spend more than 4 hours of non-reimbursed time weekly researching issues related to patient care (47% Hem/Oncs vs 41% PCPs). Despite progress in electronic health records and widespread Internet access, these physicians most typically use the phone to communicate about the management of cancer survivors (64% Hem/Oncs vs 74% PCPs), followed by faxed/mailed letters, with email ranking as least used. Lack of prompt communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs was the second highest barrier listed by respondents to effective management (22% and 27%, respectively). Conclusion Analysis of the Hem/Onc and PCP learner responses to the polling surveys point to clinical complexities and persistent challenges in the co-management of survivors of hematologic cancers. The challenges relate to communication, technological, healthcare system and healthcare coverage issues.Timely, ongoing communication of the right clinical information between Hem/Oncs and PCPs is essential for optimal management of the growing number of cancer survivors. Hem/Oncs and PCPs devote significant time each week to addressing the cancer survivors' needs; the lack of reimbursed time for PCPs may be an impediment to optimal care. Hem/Oncs and PCPs place a high value on the utility of survivorship care plans; however, they are not widely used. Phone calls are the current preferred communication mode. Until other technological solutions are more widely used to share clinical information, it is important to employ practical solutions, such as providing PCPs with information to help prioritize cancer survivors' follow-up care needs and providing patients/caregivers with brief cancer treatment summaries. Communication strategies to address potentially preventable causes of death, such as cardiac disease and second cancers, as well as acknowledgment and treatment for anxiety and depression related issues [Harrington 2010], which often accompany the uncertainty many cancer survivors live with, are critical. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Do Survivorship Care Plans Make a Difference? A Primary Care Provider Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Mor Shalom ◽  
Erin E. Hahn ◽  
Jacqueline Casillas ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer History ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Provider Perspective

Survivorship care plans were highly valued by these primary care providers, increasing their knowledge about survivors' cancer history and influencing patient management.

scholarly journals Eliciting Preferences of Providers in Primary Care Settings for Post Hospital Discharge Patient Follow-Up

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8317
Author(s):  
Xin Wang ◽  
Kuimeng Song ◽  
Lijin Chen ◽  
Yixiang Huang ◽  
Stephen Birch
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Follow Up Care

Background: Post-hospital discharge follow-up has been a principal intervention in addressing gaps in care pathways. However, evidence about the willingness of primary care providers to deliver post-discharge follow-up care is lacking. This study aims to assess primary care providers’ preferences for delivering post-discharge follow-up care for patients with chronic diseases. Methods: An online questionnaire survey of 623 primary care providers who work in a hospital group of southeast China. Face-to-face interviews with 16 of the participants. A discrete choice experiment was developed to elicit preferences of primary care providers for post-hospital discharge patient follow-up based on six attributes: team composition, workload, visit pattern, adherence of patients, incentive mechanism, and payment. A conditional logit model was used to estimate preferences, willingness-to-pay was modelled, a covariate-adjusted analysis was conducted to identify characteristics related to preferences, 16 interviews were conducted to explore reasons for participants’ choices. Results: 623 participants completed the discrete choice experiment (response rate 86.4%, aged 33 years on average, 69.5% female). Composition of the follow-up team and adherence of patients were the attributes of greatest relative importance with workload and incentives being less important. Participants were indifferent to follow-up provided by home visit or as an outpatient visit. Conclusion: Primary care providers placed the most importance on the multidisciplinary composition of the follow-up team. The preference heterogeneity observed among primary care providers suggests personalized management is important in the multidisciplinary teams, especially for those providers with relatively low educational attainment and less work experience. Future research and policies should work towards innovations to improve patients’ engagement in primary care settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document