Assessing oncology patient and provider telehealth experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 284-284
Author(s):  
Kelly Eng ◽  
Caitlin C. Donohue ◽  
Andrew J. Wagner ◽  
David W. Dougherty ◽  
Elahi Salehi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Patient Survey ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Oncology Patient ◽  
Provider Experience ◽  
Experience Survey ◽  
Provider Survey

284 Background: Due to COVID-19, telehealth volume at our comprehensive cancer center rose from less than 5% of exam visits to over 25% in April 2020. We sought to understand the experience of telehealth and compare it to in-person experiences for patients and providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) to identify areas for improvement. Methods: A multidisciplinary team adapted our existing patient satisfaction survey to incorporate telehealth, defined as phone and video exam visits. A technology section was created to assess aspects unique to telehealth. Questions about the patient-provider experience were the same for telehealth and in-person visits. A provider experience survey was conducted during a two-week period in May and June 2020. The provider survey aligned questions with the patient survey to compare the perceptions of the provider-patient interaction. Results: Patient experience scores for in-person and telehealth visits were comparable, with a slightly higher mean score for in-person visits. The mean scores for patient perception of care given at our cancer center was 97.5 (n=11,969) and 96.9 (n=4670) and the likelihood to recommend was 97.8 (n=12,072) and 97.4 (n=4,398) for in-person and telehealth, respectively, between June and December 2020. Patient feedback prioritized addressing technical barriers. We implemented several interventions and increased the telehealth technology section mean scores from 93.2 (n=1,095) to 95.2 (n=700) between June and December 2020. When comparing the percent of respondents scoring good or very good, provider scores showed sizable gaps between in-person and telehealth experiences on all questions (see table). The question “degree to which the care team was well coordinated” had the largest difference between in-person and telehealth scores for both patients and providers. Several interventions to adapt staffing and workflows have been implemented to improve care telehealth coordination. Conclusions: While patients reported similar satisfaction between in-person and telehealth visits, increasing coordination remains vital to improving the experience for both patients and providers. Furthermore, understanding the gap in the provider experience between in-person and telehealth is critical for successful adoption of telehealth as a long-term strategy for healthcare delivery.[Table: see text]

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 Collaborative practice trends in US physician office visits: an analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), 2007–2016

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035414
Author(s):  
Shahpar Najmabadi ◽  
Trenton J Honda ◽  
Roderick S Hooker
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Physician Office ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

ObjectivePractice arrangements in physician offices were characterised by examining the share of visits that involved physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). The hypothesis was that collaborative practice (ie, care delivered by a dyad of physician-PA and/or physician-NP) was increasing.DesignTemporal ecological study.SettingNon-federal physician offices.ParticipantsPatient visits to a physician, PA or NP, spanning years 2007–2016.MethodsA stratified random sample of visits to office-based physicians was pooled through the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use linkage file. Among 317 674 visits to physicians, PAs or NPs, solo and collaborative practices were described and compared over two timespans of 2007–2011 and 2012–2016. Weighted patient visits were aggregated in bivariate analyses to achieve nationally representative estimates. Survey statistics assessed patient demographic characteristics, reason for visit and visit specialty by provider type.ResultsWithin years 2007–2011 and 2012–2016, there were 4.4 billion and 4.1 billion physician office visits (POVs), respectively. Comparing the two timespans, the rate of POVs with a solo PA (0.43% vs 0.21%) or NP (0.31% vs 0.17%) decreased. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-PA increased non-significantly. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-NP (0.49% vs 0.97%, p<0.01) increased. Overall, collaborative practice, in particular physician-NP, has increased in recent years (p<0.01), while visits handled by a solo PA or NP decreased (p<0.01). In models adjusted for patient age and chronic conditions, the odds of collaborative practice in years 2012–2016 compared with years 2007–2011 was 35% higher (95% CI 1.01 to 1.79). Furthermore, in 2012–2016, NPs provided more independent primary care, and PAs provided more independent care in a non-primary care medical specialty. Preventive visits declined among all providers.ConclusionsIn non-federal physician offices, collaborative care with a physician-PA or physician-NP appears to be a growing part of office-based healthcare delivery.

scholarly journals Board-Certified Oncology Pharmacists: Their Potential Contribution to Reducing a Shortfall in Oncology Patient Visits

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e359-e368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Ignoffo ◽  
Katherine Knapp ◽  
Mitchell Barnett ◽  
Sally Yowell Barbour ◽  
Steve D’Amato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Oncology Patient ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Number Of Patients

Purpose: With an aging US population, the number of patients who need cancer treatment will increase significantly by 2020. On the basis of a predicted shortage of oncology physicians, nonphysician health care practitioners will need to fill the shortfall in oncology patient visits, and nurse practitioners and physician assistants have already been identified for this purpose. This study proposes that appropriately trained oncology pharmacists can also contribute. The purpose of this study is to estimate the supply of Board of Pharmacy Specialties–certified oncology pharmacists (BCOPs) and their potential contribution to the care of patients with cancer through 2020. Methods: Data regarding accredited oncology pharmacy residencies, new BCOPs, and total BCOPs were used to estimate oncology residencies, new BCOPs, and total BCOPs through 2020. A Delphi panel process was used to estimate patient visits, identify patient care services that BCOPs could provide, and study limitations. Results: By 2020, there will be an estimated 3,639 BCOPs, and approximately 62% of BCOPs will have completed accredited oncology pharmacy residencies. Delphi panelists came to consensus (at least 80% agreement) on eight patient care services that BCOPs could provide. Although the estimates given by our model indicate that BCOPs could provide 5 to 7 million 30-minute patient visits annually, sensitivity analysis, based on factors that could reduce potential visit availability resulted in 2.5 to 3.5 million visits by 2020 with the addition of BCOPs to the health care team. Conclusion: BCOPs can contribute to a projected shortfall in needed patient visits for cancer treatment. BCOPs, along with nurse practitioners and physician assistants could substantially reduce, but likely not eliminate, the shortfall of providers needed for oncology patient visits.

Optimizing the use of a nutrition screening tool for oncology patients.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 101-101
Author(s):  
Carol Parrales ◽  
Maritza Cardena Alencar ◽  
Jessica MacIntyre ◽  
Chinny Trivedi ◽  
Patricia Araujo
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Referral Process ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Nutrition Screening ◽  
Nutrition Screening Tool

101 Background: Oncology infusion centers play a crucial role in detection of malnutrition. In one month, the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center chemotherapy infusion center in Miami (SCCC CTU) treats over 400 oncology patients. Research shows that 40-80% of patients with a cancer diagnosis are malnourished (Isenring et al., 2006). In April, 1.89% of patients seen at the Miami CTU were referred to an oncology nutritionist. The goal was to increase the percentage of patients referred by 2% by June through adequate screening and referral. Methods: SCCC Miami CTU nursing staff’s knowledge on the use of the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and the referral process were assessed through a survey. The survey also functioned as an educational instrument. Additionally, one-on-one discussions about the referral process were conducted with the SCCC CTU nurse practitioners. Results: The survey was available to CTU RNs with a 35% completion rate. Results portrayed that 82.35% were aware of the MST screening tool; however, 88.25% were unaware of the appropriate code to refer patients to nutritionist. Therefore, if nutritional consults were placed, it was unlikely that the nutritionist would receive the request. Identified obstacles included having to call a provider to initiate a consult, lack of time for proper assessment and the availability of a nutritionist. Conclusions: Although results did not yield a significant increase of referrals through the use of the appropriate code, there was a 1.22% increase on the overall referrals placed. Lack of training and knowledge on the MST, improper use of the referral code, and the intricacy of the workflow, were contributing factors to the inadequacy in screening and referral process. Participation of all staff in education initiatives and interventions should be a vital component in improving quality care of oncology patients. [Table: see text]

Analysis of financial sustainability of survivorship clinics led by advanced practice providers.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11560-11560
Author(s):  
Maria Alma Rodriguez ◽  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Patricia Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Manage Care ◽  
Recovery Percentage ◽  
Long Term Survivors ◽  
Delivery Models

11560 Background: Disease specific Survivorship Care Clinics (SCs) have been established within a comprehensive cancer center. Clinics are staffed by Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), Physician Assistants and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, with experience in the management of each disease type. To determine the sustainability of this model of survivorship care, we analyzed the professional fees’ revenue generated by APPs’ billings for 6 clinics and then compared the APPs’ salaries across all clinics. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 6 survivorship clinic’s patient volumes and clinic days supported by APPs from 9/1/16-4/30/17. The full FTE salary of the APPs, including benefits were prorated to the time dedicated to each of the SCs. Institutional financial data was used to align professional fees to actual reimbursements received. Salary recovery percentage was calculated as the ratio of reimbursement received to prorated FTE salary. Results: Table shows variation in APPs’ salary commensurate to FTE proportion. Results also indicate there was an average of 99% professional fee recovery. Clinics with an FTE proportion > 0.5 had recovery higher than the anticipated prorated salary, suggesting there is a threshold to maximize efficacy and sustainability. Conclusions: APPs professional fees for care provided to cancer survivors are reimbursable, across disease types or payers, and proportionally supports their salaries. Our findings suggest delivery models based on APPs to manage care of long-term survivors can be self-supporting.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Cancer Care: Development of an Infectious Diseases Physician Assistant Workforce at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e31-e34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candice N. White ◽  
Roy A. Borchardt ◽  
Mary L. Mabry ◽  
Kathleen M. Smith ◽  
Victor E. Mulanovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Physician Assistant ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Care Development

The authors outline the process through which the infectious diseases department at The M. D. Anderson Cancer Center successfully integrated physician assistants into patient care services, as judged by an overall increase in departmental productivity, broadened patient care coverage, and physician satisfaction with midlevel services.

Characterization of unplanned 30-day medical oncology readmissions after discharge at an academic medical center with a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 269-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Tolin Lennes ◽  
Justin Eusebio ◽  
Nie Bohlen ◽  
Margaret Ruddy ◽  
David P. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Readmission Rate ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Unplanned Readmission ◽  
Oncology Patient ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Increased Risk

269 Background: Hospital readmission rate is increasingly suggested as a quality care metric. Currently there are no standard criteria for an avoidable readmission in oncology. Although patients with cancer have been identified as being at increased risk of readmission, there has been little to examine the reasons for the oncology patient readmission. The aim was to examine the profiles of patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge by an oncology provider and to measure the unplanned 30-day readmission rate. Methods: A retrospective review of oncology provider discharge encounters resulting in a 30-day unplanned readmission during the 2012 calendar year at a tertiary hospital with a comprehensive cancer center was conducted. Planned readmissions for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, dialysis, and surgical procedures, as well as readmissions for rehabilitation, hospice, and psychiatry were excluded. Medical oncologists analyzed medical records for the primary reason of readmission and if the readmission was possibly preventable. Results: Of the 2,944 admissions, a final cohort of 441 unplanned readmissions from 321 unique patients for an unplanned 30-day readmission rate of 14.9% was observed. The average age at admission was 59 (SD 15.9). The cohort was mostly male (56.9%) and White/Caucasian (84.4%). Gastrointestinal (24.0%), lymphoma (18.6%), and leukemia (17.5%) were the most common cancer types. Of those with solid tumors types (n = 225), approximately 70% had metastatic disease. The median time to readmission was 10 days and 10.7% died within 30 days of readmission. Oncology reviewers most commonly assessed that readmission was primarily due to treatment-related effects (46.7%) and the progression of disease (42.2%). Approximately 20% of 30-day readmissions were determined to be possibly preventable, representing 3% of all admissions for the year. Conclusions: Oncology patients readmitted within 30-days frequently present with complicated, advanced disease. A review by medical oncologists suggests there is margin for intervention to reduce 30-day unplanned admissions.

Nurses’ roles and responsibilities in the provision of early palliative care: A grounded theory study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
Shan Darrel Mohammed ◽  
Pamela Savage ◽  
Camilla Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Early Palliative Care ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities

98 Background: The benefits of providing early palliative care (EPC) are well researched. Few studies have explored the knowledge and skill used by nurses to help patients and families transition to and receive palliative care. In this study, we examine the roles and responsibilities of nurses in the provision of EPC and explore some of the barriers and facilitators they encounter as part of this complicated work. Methods: We drew on constructivist grounded theory to guide our methods and analysis. Nurses were recruited from several ambulatory care clinics in a comprehensive cancer center in Ontario, Canada. Nurses who participated in the study completed semi-structured interviews seeking to examine the roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and skills they utilized to provide EPC. Results: Ten nurse practitioners, six staff nurses, and four advanced practice nurses completed interviews for a total of 20 participants. Participants practiced in a variety of settings such as head and neck, breast, pancreatic, and hematology. The core category Brokering Palliative Care includes three subcategories: (1) Moving backwards and forward – stepping back to assess patients’ willingness to hear about EPC and then proceeding by selling the benefits of palliative to improving everyday function; (2) Addressing misconceptions and stigma – dealing with patients’ assumptions about palliative care as diminishing hope and accelerating the end of life; and (3) Advocating with the interprofessional team – bringing patient concerns forward to the team, managing interprofessional dynamics, and seeding the process of referral to EPC. Conclusions: Oncology nurses play a central role by brokering EPC for patients with serious cancers and their families. They draw on their proximity to patients, relational and communication capabilities, care coordination skills, and advocacy abilities. Brokering palliative care is conditional on nurses’ comfort level, experience, workload, and relationships with other healthcare professionals, especially oncologists. Moreover, the brokering work of nurses must be enacted within the boundaries of the nursing role and their relative position within the healthcare system.

“I’m going to push this door open. You can close it”: A qualitative study of the brokering work of oncology clinic nurses in introducing early palliative care

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shan Mohammed ◽  
Pamela Savage ◽  
Nanor Kevork ◽  
Nadia Swami ◽  
Gary Rodin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Early Palliative Care ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Psychosocial Processes

Background: Early palliative care improves quality of life during life-prolonging treatment for patients with cancer, but the role of nurses in facilitating the early involvement of palliative care is unclear. Aim: To conceptualize the psychosocial processes involved in the introduction and provision of palliative care by oncology nurses. Design: A constructivist qualitative grounded theory study was conducted. Setting/participants: A total of 20 nurses (6 staff nurses, 10 nurse practitioners, and 4 advanced practice nurses) completed semi-structured interviews. Participants were from multiple ambulatory care oncology clinics (i.e. breast, pancreatic, hematology) in a comprehensive cancer center. Results: The core category, brokering palliative care, represented the overarching concept of the study that linked other subcategories. The other subcategories were as follows: opening the door—creating the possibility of discussing early palliative care at a time when patients show signs of being receptive to this discussion; building trust—establishing relationships with patients as a starting point for open discussions about palliative care; tackling misconceptions—addressing patients’ assumptions about palliative care as signifying death; and advocating with oncologists—seeding the process of referral by bringing patients’ concerns forward. Conclusion: Oncology nurses play a central role in “brokering” the introduction of early palliative care; this process is supported by their relational proximity to patients and their location “in between” the patient and the oncologist. Training all nurses in palliative care and empowering them to have proactive discussions in a collaborative practice context would allow greater access to early palliative care.

scholarly journals Urologic Oncology Patient Perspectives During COVID-19 Treatment Delays

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Faris ◽  
Lindsey Herrel ◽  
James Montie ◽  
Stephanie Chisholm ◽  
Ashley Duby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Delay ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Oncology Patient ◽  
Urologic Oncology ◽  
Personalized Care ◽  
Phone Calls ◽  
Urologic Cancer ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic led to delays in urologic cancer treatment. We sought the patient perspective on these delays. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory-sequential design. Survey findings are presented here. Patients from a Midwestern Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network provided demographic and clinical data and responded to statements asking them to characterize their experience of treatment delay, patient-provider communication and coping strategies. We quantified patient distress with an ordinal scale (0-10), based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT). Results Forty-four consenting patients responded to the survey. Most were older than 61 years (77%) and male (66%). Their diagnoses included bladder (45%), prostate (30%) and kidney (20%) cancers. Median time since diagnosis was 6 months, 95% had plans for surgical treatment. Dominant reactions to treatment delay included fear that cancer would progress (50%) and relief at avoiding COVID-19 exposure (43%). Most patients reported feeling that their providers acknowledged their emotions (70%), yet 52% did not receive follow up phone calls and only 55% felt continually supported by their providers. Patients’ median distress level was 5/10 with 68% of patients reaching a clinically significant level of distress (≥4). Thematically grouped suggestions for providers included better communication (18%), more personalized support (14%), and better patient education (11%). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, a high proportion of urologic cancer patients reached a clinically significant level of distress. While they felt concern from providers, they desired more engagement and personalized care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document