scholarly journals Perceptions of Cancer Care and Clinical Trials in the Black Community: Implications for Care Coordination Between Oncology and Primary Care Teams

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 1094-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Sprague Martinez ◽  
Elmer R. Freeman ◽  
Karen M. Winkfield
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Black Community ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Care Teams

Evaluation of coordination of cancer care between designated cancer hospitals and primary care providers: Results from a nationwide survey in Japan.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Taro Tomizuka ◽  
Tomone Watanabe ◽  
Satoru Kamitani ◽  
Takahiro Higashi
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Critical Path ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Cancer Specialist

84 Background: To improve coordination of cancer care between cancer specialist hospitals and primary care providers (PCPs), the Japanese government accredited cancer specialist hospitals, so called “designated cancer care hospitals (DCCHs)” and introduced “Cancer care coordination instruction fee” which PCPs can receive if they share a cancer critical path (Japanese version of Survivorship Care Plans) of each cancer patient with DCCHs. We sought to assess the current status of coordination of cancer care in Japan and communication between DCCHs and PCPs from PCPs’ point of view. Methods: A cross-sectional mail survey was administered to randomly selected clinic-based PCPs (4,000 clinics) from a nation-wide database of medical institutions authorized by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Japan to treat patients with health insurance (87,869 clinics). The survey evaluated how much PCPs provided cancer follow-up care and how well DCCHs coordinated care and communicated with PCPs in cancer survivorship. Results: 1,873 PCPs returned the questionnaire (response rate: 46.8%). 1,223 (65.3%) answered to provide cancer follow-up care in outpatient setting. Most of the PCPs which provided cancer follow-up care evaluated the care coordination and support by DCCHs were satisfactory (946, 77.4%) but the degree of good evaluation varied by region (highest: 91.3%, lowest: 45.8%). In regression analysis, provision of palliative care by PCPs (OR 1.52 95%CI 1.05-2.17) and use of cancer critical path (OR 2.10 95%CI 1.63-2.71) were significantly correlated with better evaluation of communication and care coordination. Conclusions: DCCHs communicated well with PCPs and PCPs were satisfied with the communication and care coordination by DCCHs. Provision of palliative care by PCPs and use of cancer critical path are likely to lead good care coordination in cancer care.

Identifying challenges to breast cancer care coordination at urban community-based primary care clinics.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Tamara Hamlish ◽  
Zakiya N Moton ◽  
Zuoli Zhang ◽  
Dana Sohmer ◽  
Olufunmilayo I. Olopade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Primary Care Visit ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Care Continuum ◽  
Cancer Specialists

83 Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to play a significant role in improving cancer care in the U.S. and achieving the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation for patient-centered, coordinated, comprehensive cancer care across the care continuum. This is particularly important in underserved communities where fragmented care contributes to widening disparities in cancer mortality. However, PCPs can face considerable challenges delivering cancer care. This research examines challenges to breast cancer survivorship (BCS) care coordination at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Methods: We conducted a chart review at five Chicago FQHCs to assess BCS-related follow-up care provided by PCPs. We reviewed patient electronic medical records for documentation of breast cancer-related health information by the PCP and for documentation from cancer specialists, including consultant notes, pathology reports, and treatment histories. Based on BC ICD -9 codes we identified 109 patients who had a BC diagnosis within five years and a primary care visit at one of the five FQHCS within 2 years. Results: The patient population was primarily comprised of African Americans (81%), with 16% Hispanic, and 4% Asian or non-Hispanic White. Mean age at diagnosis was 55 years with 30% diagnosed < 50 years. Medicaid (59%) was the most common health insurance. More than half of the patients had ≥1 chronic disease. Critical clinical BC information was missing from patient medical records, including BC pathology (65%), mammogram (60%), last clinical breast examination (49%), and cancer specialist notes (45%). Documentation of family history and genetic counseling were missing from 76% and 98% of the records, respectively. Conclusions: Our data indicate that PCPs at FQHCs currently have a limited role in delivering IOM recommended patient-centered, coordinated, comprehensive cancer care across the care continuum. The research results underscore a need for improvement in two key areas: 1) support for PCPs to build capacity in BCS care and 2) enhanced communication and care coordination between cancer specialists and PCPS in order to make PCPs an active part of the BCS care team.

scholarly journals Staff Perspectives on Primary Care Teams as De Facto “Hubs” for Care Coordination in VA: a Qualitative Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 82-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya T. Olmos-Ochoa ◽  
Purnima Bharath ◽  
David A. Ganz ◽  
Polly H. Noël ◽  
Neetu Chawla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Primary Care Teams

scholarly journals Challenges and insights in implementing coordinated care between oncology and primary care providers: a Canadian perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 120 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.R. Tomasone ◽  
M. Vukmirovic ◽  
M.C. Brouwers ◽  
E. Grunfeld ◽  
R. Urquhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Program Support

We report here on the current state of cancer care coordination in Canada and discuss challenges and insights with respect to the implementation of collaborative models of care. We also make recommendations for future research. This work is based on the findings of the Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care Along the Continuum (canimpact) casebook project. The casebook project identified models of collaborative cancer care by systematically documenting and analyzing Canadian initiatives that aim to improve or enhance care coordination between primary care providers and oncology specialists. The casebook profiles 24 initiatives, most of which focus on breast or colorectal cancer and target survivorship or follow-up care.Current key challenges in cancer care coordination are associated with establishing program support, engaging primary care providers in the provision of care, clearly defining provider roles and responsibilities, and establishing effective project or program planning and evaluation. Researchers studying coordinated models of cancer care should focus on designing knowledge translation strategies with updated and refined governance and on establishing appropriate protocols for both implementation and evaluation.

scholarly journals �The Doctor Needs to Know�: Acceptability of Smartphone Location Tracking for Care Coordination (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T Liss ◽  
Eloisa Serrano ◽  
Julie Wakeman ◽  
Christine Nowicki ◽  
David R Buchanan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Location Tracking ◽  
Care Managers ◽  
Primary Care Teams ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Willingness To Use

BACKGROUND Care coordination can be highly challenging to carry out. When care is fragmented across health systems and providers, there is an increased likelihood of hospital readmissions and wasteful health care spending. During and after care transitions, smartphones have the potential to bolster information transfer and care coordination. However, little research has examined patients’ perceptions of using smartphones to coordinate care. OBJECTIVE This study’s primary objective was to explore patient acceptability of a smartphone app that could facilitate care coordination in a safety net setting. Our secondary objective was to identify how clinicians and other members of primary care teams could use this app to coordinate care. METHODS This qualitative study was conducted at a federally qualified health center in metropolitan Chicago, IL. We conducted four focus groups (two in English, two in Spanish) with high-risk adults who owned a smartphone and received services from an organizational care management program. We also conducted structured interviews with clinicians and a group interview with care managers. Focus groups elicited patients’ perceptions of a smartphone app designed to: (1) identify emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient stays using real-time location data; (2) send automated notifications (ie, alerts) to users’ phones, asking whether they were a patient in the hospital; and (3) send automated messages to primary care teams to notify them about patients’ confirmed ED visits and inpatient stays. Focus group transcripts were coded based on emergent themes. Clinicians and care managers were asked about messages they would like to receive from the app. RESULTS Five main themes emerged in patient focus group discussions. First, participants expressed a high degree of willingness to use the proposed app during inpatient stays. Second, participants expressed varying degrees of willingness to use the app during ED visits, particularly for low acuity ED visits. Third, participants stated their willingness to have their location tracked by the proposed app due to its perceived benefits. Fourth, the most frequently mentioned barriers to acceptability were inconveniences such as “false alarm” notifications and smartphone battery drainage. Finally, there was some tension between how to maximize usability without unnecessarily increasing user burden. Both clinicians and care managers expressed interest in receiving messages from the app at the time of hospital arrival and at discharge. Clinicians were particularly interested in conducting outreach during ED visits and inpatient stays, while care managers expressed more interest in coordinating postdischarge care. CONCLUSIONS High-risk primary care patients in a safety net setting reported a willingness to utilize smartphone location tracking technology to facilitate care coordination. Further research is needed on the development and implementation of new smartphone-based approaches to care coordination.

Patients’ perceptions of care coordination among NCORP therapeutic clinical trial participants: A matched case-control study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13504-e13504
Author(s):  
Izumi Okado ◽  
Ian Pagano ◽  
Jessica Rhee ◽  
Jeffrey L. Berenberg ◽  
Randall F. Holcombe
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Domain Scores

e13504 Background: Effective coordination of care (CC) is a critical component of high-quality cancer care; however, many patients with cancer continue to receive poorly coordinated care. CC experiences among therapeutic clinical trial (CT) participants are relatively unknown. We examined cancer patients’ perceptions of CC among CT participants using a validated Care Coordination Instrument (CCI). Methods: The study sample (N = 90) consisted of 45 CT participants and 45 matched non-participants from archival data from our prior CC studies. 171 patients who participated in therapeutic cancer clinical trials through the Hawaii Minority/Underserved NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) between 2015 and 2020 were contacted for study participation, and 26% completed the CCI. The CCI measures overall perceptions of CC and across 3 domains (Communication, Navigation, Operational). Paired t-tests were used to compare overall and domain scores between CT participants and non-participants. The two groups were matched by age, gender, cancer type (breast, GI, other), and clinical stage. Results: Among CT participants, the mean age was 61.7 ( SD = 9.4), and the majority were female (67%) and Asian (56%). The most common cancer types were breast (27%) and GI (16%), with 24% with stage III disease. CT participants reported significantly higher total CC scores than non-participants (62.5 vs. 55.8; p = .0008). Similar trends were found for Navigation ( p = .007) and Operational ( p = .001) domain scores. 29% of CT participants reported receiving high-intensity CC assistance from their clinical research associates (CRAs), and 27% indicated receiving moderate-level CC assistance. Responses to open-ended questions regarding CC revealed that CT participants received assistance with a variety of CC activities from their CRAs, including scheduling appointments and explaining test results and procedures. Conclusions: Patients who participate in therapeutic cancer clinical trials report more positive perceptions of CC compared to non-participants. Qualitative data suggest that significant care coordination support is provided by the clinical research associate. The results underscore the importance of CC support provided by CRAs who may be an unrecognized component of the healthcare delivery team. CC provided by CRAs may contribute to improved quality and value of cancer care for patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials.

Expectations of discipline representation on multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) teams.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 195-195
Author(s):  
Irene Prabhu Das ◽  
Katherine Mallin ◽  
E. Greer Gay ◽  
Heather Rozjabek ◽  
Mary L. Fennell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Genetic Counselors ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Case Presentation ◽  
Cancer Program

195 Background: The Commission on Cancer’s (CoC) standards require accredited cancer programs to utilize a multidisciplinary team approach for treatment planning. A recent CoC survey sought to characterize current multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) practice from the cancer programs’ perspective. Methods: The survey, administered to 1,261 programs, included items on team structure and process, case presentation, clinical trials and patient involvement. Each facility was designated to report on MTP for one cancer type: Breast, Gastrointestinal (GI), Lung, Head/Neck, Gynecologic (Gyn), Brain/Central Nervous System (CNS). A total of 797 (63%) facilities responded. Initial analyses highlight the disciplines expected to attend MTP meetings. Results: Forty-eight percent expected all core physician specialties (Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery and/or Surgical Oncology), to attend the initial case presentation. Respondents also expected affiliated specialists and professionals to attend initial case presentations, and included pathologists (90%), clinical trials nurses (46%), patient navigators (37%), primary care providers (20%), and genetic counselors (18%). Data analysis demonstrated significant variation in expected disciplinary attendance for select providers depending on type of cancer program, as illustrated below (Table). Analysis by cancer type showed that primary care physicians were expected to attend Lung MTP meetings at 25% of the facilities compared to Breast (15%). Genetic counselors were expected to attend MTP meetings for Breast (29%), Gyn (24%), and GI (18%). Additional analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: To improve cancer care quality, the CoC has put forward standards to foster multidisciplinary professional participation in the treatment of cancer care. Findings indicate expectations of attendance for key disciplines at MTP meetings vary by tumor–specific MTP and by type of cancer program. Key genetic markers for certain sites may also explain why genetic counselors are expected to attend. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals On Becoming an Ally

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Epworth, ARNP
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
Diverse Group ◽  
Underrepresented Populations ◽  
Cancer Centers

Earlier this year, I was asked to participate in a meeting titled “Virtual Summit to Define the Role of Oncology Advanced Practitioners in Equitable Cancer Care Delivery: A Closer Look at Care Coordination, Clinical Trials, and Implicit Bias” held by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and Harborside. This conversation brought together a diverse group of participants to discuss the unique difficulties that people of color and underrepresented populations face with a cancer diagnosis and potential pathways for improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document