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 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.

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.

Survivors' narratives of the value of cancer survivorship care plans and clinical services.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Megan Hebdon ◽  
Sara McComb ◽  
Richard W Wagner ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Head Neck

57 Background: Providers in primary care practice can benefit from having a better understanding of cancer survivors’ perceptions of the value of survivorship treatment summaries and care plans. Our objective was to qualitatively explore survivors’ perceptions of care received in dedicated outpatient clinics for survivors of breast, genitourinary (GU), and head/neck cancers. Methods: This study was conducted from August 8, 2014 to October 2, 2014 in 3 clinics, selected on variation in infrastructure, patient populations, and disease site. A convenience sample of survivors scheduled for an appointment in these clinics was eligible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by research staff trained in qualitative methodology. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Groups explored a) experience with care/services, b) value of care plan, service coordination and clinic operations and c) gaps/strengths in transition to clinics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and analyze demographic and clinical data. Discussions were transcribed verbatim with confirmation of themes among a team of researchers. Results: A total of 36 survivors, X= 62.3 (SD = 10.9) years, were interviewed. Of these 27.8% breast survivors, 38.9% head/neck, and 33.3% GU, with X= 8.33 (SD = 5.83) years since their cancer diagnosis. Of these, 80.5% were Caucasian, 8.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5.6% African-American. 61.1% were male and 78.6% married or living with someone. Survivors cited concerns about inconsistency in methods used to distribute care plans to survivors, inadequate communication about the purpose of the care plan, and vague recall of receiving care plans. Survivors reported the value of receiving survivorship care were “having an awareness of what’s up the road, establishing a constant relationship with their provider and addressing gaps in care”. Conclusions: The value of offering survivorship care is supported by the narratives of these survivors. Additional training and education on effective communication about survivorship care plans may be useful to oncology specialists and primary care providers.

Primary care providers’ evaluation of survivorship care plans.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 188-188
Author(s):  
Deborah Mayer ◽  
Kim Dittus ◽  
Dorothy Dulko ◽  
Clare Pace ◽  
Brian Sprague ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Care Guidelines ◽  
Barriers To Use ◽  
The Right

188 Background: Survivorship care represents a distinct phase of the cancer care and addresses surveillance, the physical and psychosocial sequelae of the cancer and treatment, and health promotion. Survivorship care plans (SCP) were recommended in the 2005 IOM From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor as a tool to address these issues and will be required by the Commission on Cancer in 2015. As part of two studies implementing SCP using the JourneyForward (JF-SCP) template, we evaluated primary care providers (PCP) perspective on their use. Methods: JF-SCP were developed and delivered to patients and PCP at the end of treatment. We collected information about usability, comprehension, barriers to use, and respondent demographics. Results: Of the 61 PCP who responded: 86% were physicians, 60% were women, had an average of 20 years in practice. PCP strongly agreed/agreed that SCP were easy to understand (95.7%), the right length (73.9%), addressed the right topics (95.7%), would be useful in talking with patients about survivorship plans (91.3%), would improve communication with oncologists (74.4%) and with patients (74.4%). Significant barriers interfering with the PCP providing follow-up care included: limited access to survivors as they stay with oncologists (59.5%), insufficient knowledge of issues (53.4%), inadequate recommendations from the oncologist (43.9%), lack of survivor care guidelines (42%), lack of time (38%), and poor reimbursement (16.6%). Specific suggestions about the JF-SCP included making it shorter and being clear about which provider was responsible for obtaining recommended testing. PCP commented on the importance of ongoing primary care provided throughout the cancer continuum. Conclusions: PCP reported ease of SCP use but did identify areas for improvement. Many PCP were frequently not included or did not stay involved with the cancer patient when being seen by oncologists. The SCP was viewed as a tool to facilitate communication with oncologists and patients.

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

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.

Tailored survivorship care plans for head and neck cancer patients.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Salner ◽  
Shrujal S. Baxi ◽  
Elizabeth Fortier ◽  
Talya Salz
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Patient Reported

51 Background: Survivorship care plans SCPs typically include generic advice for cancer surveillance, management of late effects (LEs), wellness recommendations (WRs), and cancer screening. We developed a platform called HN-STAR that uses electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and evidence-based management guidelines to generate tailored SCPs for head and neck cancer survivors (HNCSs), a population particularly vulnerable to various LEs. We surveyed HNCSs and their primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the SCP to assess its acceptability and usefulness. Methods: HNCSs at 2 cancer hospitals used HN-STAR. Prior to a routine clinic visit, HNCSs used a validated ePRO measure (PRO-CTCAE) to report 22 physical LEs and other measures to assess wellness. Based on the visit discussion, HN-STAR generated an SCP that included a treatment summary, WRs, and LE management plans. HNCSs indicated their perceptions of the SCP and intentions to adhere to WR and LE management recommendations. PCPs reported on the SCP utility and their comfort in managing WRs and LEs. Results: 47 HNCSs completed surveys (mean 5.4 yrs. from treatment completion). Most were white (89%), male (85%), had an oropharynx tumor (58%), and received multimodality therapy (81%). 51% experienced at least 9 of the 22 LEs in the last month (mean 8.2/person). 91% of HNCSs felt the SCP was easy to follow. 98% intended to follow recommendations for LEs management and 98% reported they would refer back to the SCP. 87% said they plan to share the SCP with a PCP. 23 PCPs completed the survey. 95% were satisfied with the SCP and 95% reported they would like to have one for every cancer patient. PCPs expressed varying levels of comfort in managing specific LEs of head and neck cancer (30-80%). Conclusions: Among HNCSs, an automatically generated SCP that was tailored to their WRs and LEs was acceptable, was trusted, and provided recommendations they intended to follow. PCPs found the SCP useful, and SCPs may help improve their comfort with LE management. Patient-centered SCPs that focus on existing LEs hold promise as a means to help survivors and PCPs manage survivorship issues.

Survivorship care plans: Recommended vs delivered care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10076-10076
Author(s):  
Karen L. Smith ◽  
Talia Sobel ◽  
Kathy McGurk ◽  
Colette Magnant ◽  
Victoria Croog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Liver Function Tests ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Bilateral Mastectomy ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Care Plans

10076 Background: The Committee on Cancer set a benchmark for the provision of survivorship care plans (SCP) to ≥50% of early cancer patients by the end of 2017 despite limited data indicating benefit. One hypothesis is that SCP will reduce overuse of medical care in survivors. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients with early breast cancer (BC) who were seen by a single nurse practitioner (NP) for provision of SCP after completion of primary therapy (surgery, radiation +/- chemotherapy). We evaluated adherence to recommendations for follow-up (FU) care and testing in accordance with established guidelines. Results: Between August 2013 and December 2014, 152 patients received SCP after completion of primary therapy (median 2 months, range 0-27). 98% of SCP were given to patients, but only 38% were sent to primary care providers (PCP). Median FU was 23 months. Among 130 patients who did not undergo bilateral mastectomy for whom surveillance breast imaging (SBI) was recommended, 10 (8%) had 1st SBI ≥3 months earlier than time recommended (TR), 102 (78%) within 2 months of TR, 12 (9%) ≥3 months after TR, and 6 (5%) lacked confirmation of 1st SBI. Among 113 in whom 2nd SBI dates were specified, 25 (23%) had SBI ≥3 months earlier than TR, 62 (55%) within 2 months of TR, 7 (6%) ≥3 months after TR, and 18 (16%) lacked confirmation of 2nd SBI. Among 71 patients for whom first medical oncology (MO) FU visit dates are known, 64 (90%) occurred within 3 months of TR and among 81 patients for whom first radiation oncology (RO) FU visit dates are known, 67 (83%) occurred within 3 months of TR. However, among 47 patients for whom first FU visit dates with at least 2 types of providers (MO, RO and/or surgery) are known, 15 (32%) visited 2 providers within 2 months of one other. During the 1styear after completion of primary therapy, 22% underwent body imaging (CT, PET-CT, or bone scan) and 21% had liver function tests. Conclusions: Despite provision of a SCP to patients, PCP were often not notified and healthcare utilization exceeded recommendations. Nearly a third of patients had redundant visits, a fourth had SBI earlier than recommended, and a fifth had body imaging and lab testing. Ongoing efforts are needed to coordinate care and minimize unnecessary testing in BC 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.

Utility of standardized letters in assisting primary care providers (PCPs) with the care of cancer survivors (CS).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9593-9593
Author(s):  
Ali Moghaddamjou ◽  
Caroline Speers ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Regression Models ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Faculty Appointment ◽  
Essential Components

9593 Background: Survivorship care plans have strong face validity, but individualizing plans to each patient’s needs can be resource intensive. At our institution, a 1-page standardized letter that outlines the essential components of follow-up care is mailed to PCPs at the time of a patient’s discharge. This letter highlights the recommended frequency and interval of tests and physician visits. Our study aims were to 1) characterize PCPs’ attitudes regarding these letters and 2) identify potential strategies to improve this channel of communication with PCPs. Methods: Self-administered surveys were mailed to high-volume PCPs in British Columbia, defined as those whose practices followed >/=5 breast or colorectal CS in the preceding year. The survey asked about practice characteristics and PCPs’ views towards the content and format of these standardized letters. Logistic regression models were constructed to delineate factors associated with follow-up preferences. Results: Among 787 PCPs, 507 (64%) responded: median year since graduation was 27 (range 1-62), 67% were men, 38% had a faculty appointment, 71% practiced in a group, and 92% were paid fee-for-service. When asked about their perspectives regarding the care of CS, 388 (77%) indicated they were comfortable providing follow-up with 299 (74%) reporting that the standardized letter contained adequate information. In regression models, PCPs who were comfortable with cancer surveillance and those who graduated greater than 30 years ago were more likely to view the standardized letter as useful (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.41-4.43 and OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.24-4.33, respectively) and important (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.80-9.19 and OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.01-9.74, respectively). Among 103 (26%) PCPs who found the letter to be insufficient, most wanted additional details about the cancer diagnosis (88%), specific information on the toxicities of therapy (88%), and the estimated risk of recurrence (84%). Conclusions: Most PCPS were satisfied with a simple, standardized letter that outlines the necessary components of cancer follow-up. PCPs with less familiarity with cancer surveillance may be a target group that benefits most from individualized survivorship care plans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document