Assuring Quality Cancer Survivorship Care: We've Only Just Begun

Author(s):  
Deborah K. Mayer ◽  
Charles L. Shapiro ◽  
Paul Jacobson ◽  
Mary S. McCabe

Clinical practice guidelines, quality metrics, and performance improvement projects are the key tools of the national movement to improve and assure quality cancer care. Each of these evaluation instruments is intended to assess quality from a unique perspective, including that of the individual provider, the practice/hospital, and the health care system. A number of organizations have developed or endorsed quality measures specific to cancer, however, these have not formally included survivorship measures. Fortunately, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Surgeons (ACoS) have taken a leadership role in developing survivorship guidelines and quality metrics. Both ASCO and ACoS have focused their efforts on the treatment summary and care plan, a document that was proposed in the 2006 Institute of Medicine report on cancer survivorship. ASCO has proposed a care plan template for implementation and incorporation into the electronic health records (EHR), which will lend itself to structure, process, and outcome measurement. ACoS, conversely, has included the care plan in its cancer program standards with annual evaluation metrics. In addition, ASCO has developed a number of key survivorship-relevant metrics as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), a tool developed to measure quality cancer care and assess adherence to guidelines across academic and community practices. Together, these efforts will direct us to more effective ways to disseminate guideline recommendations and to better methods of assessing quality survivorship care nationally.

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin E. Hahn ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz

This study looks at four Los Angeles–based cancer survivorship programs and finds that the Institute of Medicine–recommended survivorship care plan document can be successfully adapted for use in varied settings to inform and educate both patients and providers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283
Author(s):  
Amy Walde ◽  
Emma Bootle

283 Background: UCHealth is a 10-hospital health system located on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. In 2018, UCHealth Cancer Care diagnosed or treated more than 8,400 analytic cases. In this presentation, we will discuss how we formulated a response to our organizational need for the creation of a Cancer Survivorship Program that not only met the ASCO QOPI & Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standards but also the needs of our patients. Methods: Our response plan included devising processes for the development and delivery of treatment summary care plans (TS/SCP). The development phase comprised the formation of UCHealth Cancer Care governance structure, creation of 22 disease specific templates containing the Institute of Medicine (IOM) / National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) recommended elements of survivorship care, Electronic Health Record (EHR) automation to increase efficiency and finally designing dashboard reports to identify eligible patients and capture compliance. The delivery phase consisted of securing dedicated resources, a communication plan and education for staff and providers regarding the benefits of a Cancer Survivorship program. Results: A jump in compliance from 7% in 2015 to 29% in 2018, demonstrates the success and impact of TS/SCPs at UCHealth. We will also discuss the 2019 work plan to achieve 50% compliance as required by the CoC. Conclusions: Leveraging the EHR is necessary when developing a Cancer Survivorship Program. UCHealth will provide examples of the treatment summary care plans, reference and reporting metrics to get other programs started on their journey.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Birken ◽  
Sarah Raskin ◽  
Yuqing Zhang ◽  
Gema Lane ◽  
Alexandra Zizzi ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (32) ◽  
pp. 4151-4157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Denise Aberle ◽  
Amy Abernethy ◽  
Justin Bekelman ◽  
...  

The national cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, increasing from $125 billion in 2010. This steep upward cost trajectory has placed enormous an financial burden on patients, their families, and society as a whole and raised major concern about the ability of the health care system to provide and sustain high-quality cancer care. To better understand the cost drivers of cancer care and explore approaches that will mitigate the problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled “Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century” in October 2012. Workshop participants included bioethicists, health economists, primary care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings. All speakers expressed a sense of urgency about the affordability of cancer care resulting from the future demographic trend as well as the high cost of emerging cancer therapies and rapid diffusion of new technologies in the absence to evidence indicating improved outcomes for patients. This article is our summary of presentations at the workshop that highlighted the overuse and underuse of screening, treatments, and technologies throughout the cancer care continuum in oncology practice in the United States.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9608-9608
Author(s):  
Ruth Rechis ◽  
Carla Bann ◽  
Stephanie Nutt ◽  
Linda Squiers ◽  
Naveen Rao

9608 Background: There are more than 14 million cancer survivors in the US – a number that is on the rise. Care coordination resources will be essential to provide support to this growing population. Key stakeholders, including the Commission on Cancer (CoC) and the Institute of Medicine, have proposed survivorship care plans (SCPs) as a way to extend support. However, limited research has been conducted to date on SCPs. Methods: In 2012, the LIVESTRONG Foundation (LIVESTRONG) administered a survey to understand the role of a treatment summary (TS) and SCPs and how they fit into survivors’ care. Logistic regression models were conducted to identify factors associated with receiving SCPs or TS. Results: 5,303 survivors responded to these questions (Table). While 92% of these respondents received information about where to return to for cancer check-ups, only 51% reported receiving a TS and 17% reported receiving a SCP. Survivors who were more likely to receive SCPs if they had a navigator (p<.001) and if they were male, Black, had finished treatment within the past year, or received care at a university-based medical center or community cancer center (p < 0.05). Also, those receiving a SCP were significantly more likely to have had a detailed discussion with a provider regarding long-term side effects, emotional needs, and lifestyle recommendations. Specifically, 60% of those with a SCP discussed long-term effects compared to 39% who did not. Conclusions: Results here indicate that few survivors receive SCPs but survivors reported benefits from receiving them. Currently many workflow barriers impede delivering SCPs, and LIVESTRONG is working with key stakeholders including the CoC to automate the LIVESTRONG Care Plan powered by Penn Medicine’s OncoLink through a registry and EMR system to understand how to address this issue. [Table: see text]


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 58-58
Author(s):  
Claire Michelle Sutherby (Bennett)

58 Background: More than 15.5 million cancer survivors live in the United States. This number is expected to be over 20 million by 2026. Cancer survivors have increased risk of morbidity; therefore, preventive and on-going medical treatment requires close monitoring and coordination. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2005 report, Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, recommended health providers raise awareness of cancer survivors’ needs and establish cancer survivorship as a distinct phase of care. The IOM also recommended patients who complete primary treatment are provided a comprehensive summary and plan that is effectively explained. A survivorship care plan maps out and improves care related to accessibility of past diagnosis and treatment history, surveillance guidelines, and potential long term side effects. In 2012, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) added Standard 3.3 Survivorship Care Planto the program standards. This met the IOM’s objective of addressing potential patients that get “lost” as they transition from care they received during treatment through phases of their life or disease. Methods: The Cancer Committee within a CoC certified organization developed multiple strategies to address the IOM and CoC standards. Strategies included a process to disseminate a comprehensive care summary for cancer patients who are completing primary treatment, adoption of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Treatment Summary and Survivorship Care Plan template, and adding a survivorship nurse navigator to the interprofessional treatment team. The survivorship nurse navigator monitors and reviews survivorship care plans with patients, advises when to seek treatment for symptoms, discusses surveillance guidelines, navigates patients through therapies, and educates on prevention and screening. Results: Evaluation for quality of life and compliance with individualized surveillance guidelines is ongoing. Conclusions: The oncology nurse navigator role is uniquely positioned to lead care coordination and improve outcomes through the continuum of care. Providing patients with a summary of their treatment and a plan moving forward may decrease stress related to the transition from active treatment to survivorship.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Amy Eiko Leatherwood ◽  
Charles R. Thomas ◽  
Sara J Walker ◽  
Susan Hedlund

49 Background: The 2015 Commission on Cancer standard requires that cancer survivors receive a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP). There exists a gap in consistency of how and when this plan is delivered. There is a need to evaluate patient satisfaction with personalized care along with direct education regarding the SCP and follow up. The aim of the current study was to determine the 1) rate at which cancer survivors find in-person discussion of SCP helpful, and 2) the rate at which they find the in-person discussion more helpful than the alternatives. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was routinely administered, for quality assurance purposes, to cancer patients who completed treatment in a radiation oncology setting at a NCI-Designated Cancer Center. The population consisted of survivors of breast, prostate, colon, anal, pancreatic, lung, and liver cancers. Patients were given the questionnaire at the conclusion of a survivorship visit with a nurse practitioner devoted to survivorship care. During the visit they received a SCP with full discussion and explanation of the content. The questionnaire asks two Yes/No questions: 1) Did you find the survivorship visit helpful and/or educational? 2) Was it more helpful to have the survivorship summary explained to you in person? Results: 71 survivorship visit patients were offered a questionnaire to complete at the end of their visit. 71 completed questionnaires were received from patients. Of these 71 questionnaires, 69/71 or 97% of responses were “yes” for question 1. For question 2, 68/71, or 96% of responses were “yes.” Conclusions: Our data show that the majority of patients are finding survivorship summaries to be a positive aspect of the care continuum. In addition, patients are also indicating that visits “in person,” with face-to-face explanation of survivorship summaries, are more helpful than receiving a summary without verbal involvement or explanation. These findings suggest that such in-person discussions could be considered important in quality cancer care. Future directions include investigating the effect of other individual, disease, or treatment characteristics on an individual’s preference for SCP delivery.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 46-46
Author(s):  
Purna Arun Kurkure ◽  
Vandana Salil Dhamankar ◽  
Shreya Joshi ◽  
Shekhar Jha ◽  
Sheila Nair ◽  
...  

46 Background: Ugam is a support group of childhood cancer survivors from After Completion of Treatment (ACT) clinic at Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH), functioning under umbrella of Indian Cancer Society (ICS), not for profit organisation. Ugam’s mission is empowerment of survivors and advocacy. ACT-Ugam has provided role model for holistic care to cancer survivors.Project PICASSO (Partnership in Cancer Survivorship Optimization) is developed by ICS to promote & facilitate paediatric cancer unit (PCU) based ACT clinic & provide psychosocial support for holistic care of cancer survivors across the country. Methods: A survey was conducted for identifying the survivorship practices in pediatric cancer units (PCU) in Mumbai based hospitals to identify the partners who will setup PCU based ACT clinic. ICS will provide professional and technical assistance to ACT Clinic survivors to enable them to live a productive life. This will include identifying survivor’s need, psycho social counseling, career counseling / aptitude tests, registering them as Ugam members, funding for education if required, soft skills development programme for job readiness, facilitating job placements, survivorship care plan & information material. Ugam database was reviewed for its experience in the field so far to extrapolate the services to partner institutes under PICASSO. Results: Project PICASSO was launched by ICS in May 2016. Among five Mumbai based PCUs who participated in survey, only one (TMH) has organized survivorship program. Communication is ongoing for launch of the project with other units. Total Ugam members- 280 ( 2009 to date), male:female 195:85. Career guidance and aptitude testing provided to > 50 survivors, job placements 9, educational & vocational scholarships through ICS and by referring to other sources > 100. International scholarships to present at conferences: 5. Conclusions: Existing model of Ugam is marching towards fulfillment of its mission of empowerment and advocacy. Expansion of Ugam activities to include more survivors from other partnering units will lead to development of a national care model for cancer survivors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document