Clinician perspectives of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) at an academic cancer center.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24047-e24047
Author(s):  
Marium Husain ◽  
Sherise C. Rogers ◽  
Dori Klemanski ◽  
Michelle Fullmer ◽  
Catherine Hreachmack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Complementary And Integrative Medicine ◽  
Integrative Therapies

e24047 Background: Surveys suggest up to 87% of patients with cancer use complementary and integrative (CIM) therapies such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage and mind-body practices. These therapies may assist with symptoms of pain, nausea and anxiety. However, several studies have demonstrated that many clinicians do not inquire about CIM use, which may be due to lack of education and/or limited evidence-based data. We sought to explore the perspectives of clinicians at an academic comprehensive cancer center on the use of CIM therapies. Methods: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) who practice medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology and neuro-oncology in a Midwest tertiary comprehensive cancer center were asked to participate in a 9-question online survey which inquired about their personal knowledge and recommendation for 21 different CIM therapies (not all are offered at the cancer center). Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: The response rate for this survey was 24.5% (n = 49). Responders were from the following specialties: hematology (n = 17; 35%); solid tumor (n = 18; 37%); both hematology and solid tumor (n = 8; 16%), surgical oncology (n = 3; 6%); gynecologic oncology (n = 2; 4%) and radiation oncology (n = 1; 2%). Sixty-seven percent were attending physicians and hematology/oncology fellows (n = 33), and 33% were APPs (n = 16). Median age range was 30-39 years (range 20-59). The most recommended CIM therapy for cancer treatment-related effects was massage (80%), followed by deep breathing (55%). The least recommended CIM therapies were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Ayurvedic medicine (2%), followed by vitamins/minerals and homeopathy (both 6%). Participants requested more education on CBD/CBD oil (59%) and herbs/botanicals (49%). Up to 14% of respondents already had education on five integrative therapies. Conclusions: Hematology/oncology clinicians do not routinely recommend most CIM therapies, except for massage therapy. Efforts should be made to educate clinicians regarding CIM therapies used by patients with cancer as well resources that appraise the efficacy, safety, and potential drug interactions of these therapies. Education could encourage informed decision-making and improved patient-clinician communication and satisfaction.

Health-Care Workers’ Perception of Reimbursement for Complex Surgical Oncology Procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-145
Author(s):  
Shoshana Levi ◽  
Emily Alberto ◽  
Dakota Urban ◽  
Nicholas Petrelli ◽  
Gregory Tiesi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Patient Perceptions ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Physician Reimbursement ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Fee Schedule

Perception of physician reimbursement for surgical procedures is not well studied. The few existing studies illustrate that patients believe compensation to be higher than in reality. These studies focus on patient perceptions and have not assessed health-care workers’ views. Our study examined health-care workers’ perception of reimbursement for complex surgical oncology procedures. An anonymous online survey was distributed to employees at our cancer center with descriptions and illustrations of three oncology procedures—hepatectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Participants estimated the Medicare fee and gave their perceived value of each procedure. Participants recorded their perception of surgeon compensation overall, both before and after revealing the Medicare fee schedule. Most of the 113 participants were physicians (33.6%) and nurses (28.3%). When blinded to the Medicare fee schedules, most felt that reimbursements were too low for all procedures (60–64%) and that surgeons were overall undercompensated (57%). Value predictions for each procedure were discordant from actual Medicare fee schedules, with overestimates up to 374 per cent. After revealing the Medicare fee schedules, 55 per cent of respondents felt that surgeons were undercompensated. Even among health-care workers, a large discrepancy exists between perceived and actual reimbursement. Revealing actual reimbursements did not alter perception on overall surgeon compensation.

scholarly journals Fears, beliefs, and quality of life of patients with cancer vs the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Lombardy

2021 ◽  
pp. 030089162110228
Author(s):  
Carla Ida Ripamonti ◽  
Giacomo Massa ◽  
Daniela Insolvibile ◽  
Mauro Guglielmo ◽  
Guido Miccinesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
General Population ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Psychological Consequences ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Fear Of Cancer

Aim: To understand how patients with cancer reacted to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether their quality of life (QoL) was affected. Methods: In June 2020, 111 patients with cancer treated in the supportive care unit of a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Milan and 201 healthy controls from the general population were enrolled and assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively for fears and COVID-19–related beliefs as well as for QoL. Results: Fear of COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients (41% vs 57.6%; p = 0.007), as was fear of cancer (61.5% vs 85.6%; p < 0.001) and other diseases. The perceived risk of getting COVID-19 was lower among patients (25.2% vs 52.7%; p < 0.001), as was the belief of having been exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (18.1% vs 40.8%; p < 0.001). The physical component of QoL was better among the population (54.5 vs 43.8; p < 0.001); the reverse was true for patients’ psychological well-being (44.6 vs 39.6; p < 0.001). The qualitative data supported such results, showing a reduced psychological effect on the patients with cancer compared to the controls. Various reasons explain this result, including the awareness of being treated for cancer and nevertheless protected against getting infected in a cancer center of public health reorganized to continue treating patients by protecting them and personnel from the risk of infection. Conclusions: The experience of a cancer diagnosis, together with proper hospital reorganization, may act as protective factors from fears and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Perceptions of barriers to patient financial hardship screening differ by provider role within gynecologic oncology outpatient care.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 317-317
Author(s):  
Jhalak Dholakia ◽  
Maria Pisu ◽  
Warner King Huh ◽  
Margaret Irene Liang
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Financial Hardship ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Patient Barriers

317 Background: Although approximately half of patients with gynecologic malignancy experience financial hardship (FH) during treatment, best practices to identify and assist patients with FH are lacking. To develop such practices, we assessed oncology provider and staff perspectives about FH screening and provision of assistance. Methods: An anonymous survey was conducted electronically within the Gynecologic Oncology outpatient office at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Potential barriers to patient FH screening and follow-up were assessed within 2 domains: 1) logistic barriers to incorporating FH screening and follow-up into outpatient workflow and 2) perceived patient barriers to FH screening. Responses were elicited on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘very’ to ‘not at all’ significant and dichotomized into significant and not significant barriers. Results: Of 43 providers approached, 37 responded (86% response rate) of which 14 were physicians (MD)/nurse practitioners (NP) and 23 were other staff members (i.e., clinical and research nurses, social workers, pharmacists, care coordinators, lay navigators, and financial counselors). Altogether, 38% worked in their current position for >5 years (n=14), 11% for 3-5 years (n=4), and 51% for <3 years (n=19). For logistic barriers to implementing FH screening and follow-up, the most frequently reported significant barriers included lack of personnel training (69%) and lack of available staff (62%), training regarding follow-up (72%), and case tracking infrastructure (67%). The most frequent significant perceived patient barriers were lack of knowledge of whom to contact (72%), concerns about impact on treatment if FH needs were identified (72%), and lack of patient readiness to discuss financial needs (62%.) Compared to MD/NP, staff members more often indicated the following as significant barriers: difficulty incorporating FH screening into initial visit workflow (31 % vs. 57%, p=0.03), overstretched personnel (29% vs 73%, p=0.005), and patient concerns about influence on treatment (62% vs 86%, p=0.01). Conclusions: Care team members identified barriers to patient FH screening across logistic and patient-centered domains, although MD/NP less so than other staff possibly reflecting different exposures to patient financial needs during clinical encounters or burden of workflow. Implementation of universal FH screening, dedicated personnel, convenient tracking mechanisms, and multi-disciplinary provider and staff training may improve recognition of patient FH and facilitate its integration into oncology care plans.

scholarly journals Active Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection at a comprehensive cancer center, 2006–2014

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joumana Kmeid ◽  
Prathit A. Kulkarni ◽  
Marjorie V. Batista ◽  
Firas El Chaer ◽  
Amrita Prayag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Infection ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Disseminated Disease

Abstract Background Morbidity and mortality from Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection remain significant in cancer patients. We evaluated clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes in patients with active Mtb infection at our institution who had cancer or suspicion of cancer. Methods We retrospectively examined medical records of all patients with laboratory-confirmed active Mtb infection diagnosed between 2006 and 2014. Results A total of 52 patients with laboratory-confirmed active Mtb infection were identified during the study period, resulting in an average rate of 6 new cases per year. Thirty-two (62%) patients had underlying cancer, while 20 (38%) patients did not have cancer but were referred to the institution because of suspicion of underlying malignancy. Among patients with cancer, 18 (56%) had solid tumors; 8 (25%) had active hematologic malignancies; and 6 (19%) had undergone hematopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT). Patients with and without cancer were overall similar with the exception of median age (61 years in cancer patients compared to 53 years in noncancer patients). Pulmonary disease was identified in 32 (62%) patients, extrapulmonary disease in 10 (19%) patients, and disseminated disease in 10 (19%) patients. Chemotherapy was delayed in 53% of patients who were to receive such treatment. Eleven patients (all of whom had cancer) died; 3 of these deaths were attributable to Mtb infection. Conclusions Although not common, tuberculosis remains an important infection in patients with cancer. Approximately one-third of patients were referred to our institution for suspicion of cancer but were ultimately diagnosed with active Mtb infection rather than malignancy.

scholarly journals Unplanned 30-Day Readmissions in a General Internal Medicine Hospitalist Service at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 410-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna-Grace M. Manzano ◽  
Sahitya Gadiraju ◽  
Adarsh Hiremath ◽  
Heather Yan Lin ◽  
Jeff Farroni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Readmission Rate ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Unplanned Readmission ◽  
General Internal ◽  
Patients With Cancer

The authors observed a high unplanned readmission rate among their population of patients with cancer.

Improving the Pain Experience for Hospitalized Patients With Cancer

2019 ◽  
pp. 198-207,
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Caring Behaviors ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Chemotherapy Administration

Purpose: To determine the effect of an evidence-based Pain Stoppers bundled intervention on pain management satisfaction scores and actual pain intensity scores of hospitalized patients with cancer, as well as nurses’ knowledge and attitudes on pain. Participants & Setting: Participants and nurses took part in a preintervention group (n = 173 and 11, respectively) and a postintervention group (n = 157 and 9, respectively) at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Methodologic Approach: A pre- and postintervention design was used. Evidence-based strategies included staff education, improved staff communication, adoption of caring behaviors and timely responses, improved patient education, and efforts to maintain patients’ analgesic levels. Findings: Patient satisfaction with staff improved from preintervention to postintervention. No statistically significant differences were noted in actual pain intensity scores between the groups; however, fewer patients in the postintervention group received chemotherapy within 30 days, and more were admitted for symptom management versus chemotherapy administration. In addition, no difference was noted between RN group scores, although there was statistically significant improvement on individual questions in the postintervention group. Implications for Nursing: Implementation of a Pain Stoppers bundled intervention may be effective in improving the pain experience for hospitalized patients with solid tumor cancers.

Costs of blood transfusion: a process-flow analysis.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 2364-2370 ◽  
Author(s):  
S B Cantor ◽  
D V Hudson ◽  
B Lichtiger ◽  
E B Rubenstein
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Flow ◽  
Allogeneic Bmt ◽  
Packed Rbcs

PURPOSE To determine the cost of transfusing 2 units (U) of packed RBCs at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS We performed a process-flow analysis to identify all costs of transfusing 2 U of allogeneic packed RBCs on an outpatient basis to patients with either (1) solid tumor who did not undergo bone marrow transplantation (BMT), (2) solid tumor who underwent BMT, (3) hematologic malignancy who did not undergo BMT, (4) hematologic malignancy who underwent allogeneic BMT, or (5) hematologic malignancy who underwent autologous BMT. We conducted structured interviews to determine the personnel time used and physical resources necessary at all steps of the transfusion process. RESULTS The mean cost of a 2-U transfusion of allogeneic packed RBCs was $548, $565, $569, $569, and $566 for patients with non-BMT solid tumor, BMT solid tumor, non-BMT hematologic malignancy, allogeneic BMT hematologic malignancy, and autologous BMT hematologic malignancy, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that total transfusion costs were sensitive to variations in the amount of clinician compensation and overhead costs, but were relatively insensitive to reasonable variations in the direct costs of blood tests and the blood itself, or the probability or extent of transfusion reaction. CONCLUSION The costs of the transfusion of packed RBCs are greater than previously analyzed, particularly in the cancer care setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document