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.

Cancer survivorship algorithms as clinical tools for primary care providers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 100-100
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
The Impact

100 Background: Clinical decision tools (CDTs) such as survivorship algorithms may be valuable resources for primary care providers who provide post-treatment care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to assess providers’ perceptions, adoption, and satisfaction with clinical practice algorithms tailored to site-specific cancer survivorship clinics. Methods: Eligible providers were those assigned to one of 9 site-specific survivorship clinics, (breast, colorectal, genitourinary, gynecology, head and neck, lymphoma, melanoma, stem cell transplant, and thyroid). Potential respondents were invited to participate by emails. Voluntary return of the survey indicated a provider’s informed consent. Providers had the choice to participate by clicking on a link embedded in an email. Once the link was activated, the user was taken to a 10-item survey with questions asking about the usability, awareness, and satisfaction with the algorithms specific to their clinic. Descriptive statistics (i.e. frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize the responses. Results: Of 35 providers assigned in the survivorship clinics, 18 responded resulting in a 51% response rate. The majority of respondents (94.4%) were aware of the survivorship algorithms specific to their clinic. Over 75% reported using the algorithms occasionally (16.7%), frequently (33%) and always (33.3%). The major barrier to using the algorithms was a lack of awareness on to access the algorithms. Over half of the providers (55.6%) preferred using the digital versions of the algorithms. 68% strongly agreed the algorithms were practical to use and implement in their clinical setting. The majority of providers’ reported being satisfied (62.5%) or very satisfied (25.0%) with the algorithms tailored to their site specific clinic. Conclusions: Survivorship practice algorithms were perceived as useful clinical resources to deliver coordinated care to cancer survivors with diverse cancer diagnoses. Future work is needed to determine the impact of the algorithms on providers’ practice with cancer survivors.

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.

Survivorship care plans for colorectal cancer survivors: What do primary care providers want and need?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9131-9131 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Salz ◽  
K. C. Oeffinger ◽  
P. R. Lewis ◽  
R. Rhyne ◽  
R. L. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Survivors

Primary care providers' awareness and utilization of survivorship care plans.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Alicia R. Rosales ◽  
Tina Schaal ◽  
Shelby Darland ◽  
Dan Sayam Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans

94 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 requires that all patients who complete cancer treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). To aid in care coordination, the standard also requires that the SCP be provided to the patient’s primary care provider (PCP). St. Luke’s Mountain States Institute (MSTI) has been providing patients and PCPs with SCPs for more than 5 years. Other local accredited cancer centers also provide SCPs for their patients. Methods: In partnership with the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, MSTI created an online survey aimed at assessing the utilization of the SCP in primary care clinics and the PCP’s comfort level carrying out the recommended surveillance. The survey link was distributed through email to approximately 300 PCPs across a large geographical area in varying sized practices. Results: Sixty three responses were received in 3 weeks with 46 responses from physicians and 17 responses from advanced practice providers. All of the respondents said they care for cancer survivors in their practice but 54% have never received a SCP. Twenty nine reported having received a SCP and answered 8 questions related to how they use the SCP in practice. The majority refer to the SCP to monitor for recurrence and 52% use it as a tool for coordination of care. Forty eight percent use the SCP to manage co-morbid conditions. Ninety-five percent of all respondents indicated they feel comfortable carrying out a surveillance plan provided by the oncologist for patients 2 years out from treatment. Sixty-four percent indicated they would like additional education about caring for cancer survivors. A common theme in comments included the desire for improved communication between the oncologists and PCPs. Conclusions: This standard was created in part to improve care coordination between oncologists and PCPs. More than have of the PCPs in the MSTI service area have not seen a SCP for their patients. Most indicated they are comfortable providing surveillance if they have a clear follow-up care plan from the oncologist. More than half want additional information about caring for cancer survivors. Future exploration could include assessment of barriers to communication and utilizing the SCP in practice.

A Comparison of Perceptions of Reassurance in Patients with Nontraumatic Neck Pain and Whiplash-Associated Disorders in Consultations with Primary Care Practitioners—An Online Survey

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 3377-3386
Author(s):  
Alma Viviana Silva Guerrero ◽  
Jenny Setchell ◽  
Annick Maujean ◽  
Michele Sterling
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners ◽  
Pain Symptoms

Abstract Objectives Neck pain remains highly prevalent and costly worldwide. Although reassurance has been recommended as a first line of treatment, specific advice on the best ways to provide reassurance has not been provided due to lack of evidence. Pain symptoms and experiences differ between patients with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) and those with nontraumatic neck pain (NTNP). The aims of this study were to 1) identify and compare the concerns, fears, and worries of patients with WAD and NTNP; and 2) determine if patients believe their concerns are addressed by primary care providers. Methods These questions were investigated through an online survey, with a convenience sample of 30 participants with NTNP and 20 with WAD. Results A thematic analysis of survey responses resulted in the following seven themes related to common concerns, and two regarding how well concerns were addressed. Common concerns expressed by both groups shared four themes: 1) further structural damage, 2) psychological distress, 3) concerns about the future, and 4) hardships that eventuate. Theme 5), pain/disability is long term, was specific to WAD. Themes 6), pain is current or reoccurring, and 7), interference with daily life, were specific to NTNP. Regarding how well patient concerns were addressed, two overarching themes were common to both conditions: 1) concerns were addressed, with both groups sharing the subthemes “successful treatment,” “reassurance,” and “trust”; and 2) concerns were not addressed, where all subthemes were shared with the exception of two unique to NTNP. Conclusions This detailed comparison provides information about neck pain patients’ concerns and fears, while providing health practitioners support for selecting strategies to promote reassurance appropriately for individual patient needs. Our findings from patients’ perspectives enhance the understanding for providing reassurance for neck pain as proposed by our analysis.

The relationship between older cancer survivors’ reports of depression, anxiety and pain to health providers’ findings and mortality

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8597-8597
Author(s):  
P. H. Seo ◽  
R. Sloane ◽  
S. S. Ingram ◽  
D. Misra ◽  
E. C. Clipp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pain Anxiety

8597 Background: Older cancer survivors may experience psychological distress due to their cancer experience and aging health. This study aimed to compare primary care and specialty providers’ inquiries of pain, depression and anxiety to older cancer survivors’ questionnaire responses. Methods: 153 patients seen in oncology clinics at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Durham, NC) from November 1999 until April 2000 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a pain thermometer questionnaire. Blinded chart review examined health provider inquiries of pain, anxiety and depression. Cox proportional hazards survival analyses were performed on subjective pain, anxiety and depression with comorbidities and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) added in controlled models. Results: Patients were on average aged 68, had 5.4 comorbidities, 87.4% KPS, and were 3.1 years from a cancer diagnosis. Health providers missed 17 of 94 patients with significant levels of self-reported pain (sensitivity 0.82). Although 28 (20.6%) and 33 (25.8%) patients screened positively for depression and anxiety respectively, providers asked 7 patients about anxiety (sensitivity 0.15) and 16 patients about depression (sensitivity 0.25). The overall three year mortality was 37.9%. Pain was not associated with mortality. Patients screening for depression [HR 2.03 (95% CI: 1.03, 4.01)] and anxiety [HR 2.02 (95% CI: 1.01, 4.04)] had lower 3 year survival. KPS and comorbidities diminished these effects. Conclusions: In older cancer survivors, anxiety and depression may have an association with mortality. To improve detection, oncology and primary care providers should routinely inquire about mood and aim to intervene with pharmacologic or supportive treatments. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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.

The role of annual personal health visits (APHV) on patients' with cancer knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 152-152
Author(s):  
Delaram Farzanfar ◽  
Lin Lu ◽  
Jie Su ◽  
Devon Alton ◽  
Rahul Mohan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increase Risk

152 Background: With improvements in cancer detection and therapies, important secondary prevention measures in survivorship include smoking cessation. Primary care providers have an opportunity to discuss these measures with cancer survivors at APHV. We evaluated whether having a recent APHV is associated with cancer patients’ awareness and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking. Methods: Cancer survivors were surveyed from April 2014 to May 2016 with respect to their smoking history, knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking along with the date of their most recent APHV (term changed from annual health physical examination in 2013). Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed the association of having an APHV with knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking. Results: Of 985 cancer patients, 23% smoked at diagnosis; 34% quit > 1 year prior to diagnosis; 55% had tobacco-related cancers; 77% received curative therapy. From a knowledge viewpoint, over 52% reported being unaware that smoking negatively impacts cancer outcomes; despite this, most perceived smoking to negatively influence quality of life (75%), survival (76%), and fatigue (73%). Within the last year, 48% had an APHV, while 84% had an APHV at any time in the past; 18 (2%) reported not having a family doctor. Patients who had an APHV in the last year were more likely to be aware that continued smoking can increase risk of death (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.49, 95% CI [1.13-1.96], P=0.004), and more likely to perceive smoking to negatively impact quality of life (aOR=1.37 [0.94-1.99], P=0.10), survival (aOR=1.60 [0.95-2.71], P=0.08), and fatigue (aOR=1.63 [1.11-2.39], P=0.01). Those ever having an APHV were more likely aware that smoking can increase risk of death (aOR=1.61 [1.07-2.43], P=0.02) and second primaries (aOR=1.53 [1.02-2.33], P=0.04). Conclusions: Having a recent APHV was associated with improved awareness and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking, but it is unclear whether this is related to provider counseling or a healthy bias effect. APHV may be an appropriate time for primary care providers to treat tobacco addiction in their cancer survivors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document