scholarly journals Development of an interactive, web-based shared care plan to facilitate the follow-up care of colorectal cancer patients

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Taggart ◽  
Melvin Chin ◽  
Winston Liauw ◽  
John Lewis ◽  
Alex Dolezal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Cancer Services ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners

Abstract Introduction A shared model of care between cancer services and primary health care is safe and acceptable and can address the increasing demands on cancer services for long term follow-up. This paper describes the challenges developing an interactive shared care plan for colorectal cancer follow-up care. Methods A systematic literature review identified the use, functionality, and impact of web-based shared care plans to support cancer follow-up. Workshops with key stakeholders and consultations with clinicians, consumers and information service providers were conducted to agree on a model of care and technology options to interactively share a care plan. Results Seventeen papers reported five web-based shared care plan systems for cancer follow-up. These systems supported the creation and/or access to view or share the care plans using email or by downloading and printing a copy. The challenges we found included issues with the security, privacy and sharing of patient information between public health services and primary health care and poor integration of clinical information systems. We selected a primary care practitioners’ care planning system as it was interactive, integrated with primary care practitioner’ clinical information systems, was relatively inexpensive and addressed the sharing of clinical information with external clinicians to the public health system. Conclusion Primary care shared care planning systems seem a suitable option for sharing clinical information between a cancer service and primary care practitioners. We plan to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of this interactive shared care plan to support shared cancer follow-up care.

scholarly journals Development of an interactive, web-based shared care plan to facilitate the follow-up care of colorectal cancer patients

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Taggart ◽  
Melvin Chin ◽  
Winston Liauw ◽  
Alex Dolezal ◽  
John Plahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Cancer Services ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners

Abstract Introduction A shared model of care between cancer services and primary health care is safe and acceptable and can address the increasing demands on cancer services for long term follow-up. This paper describes the challenges developing an interactive shared care plan for colorectal cancer follow-up care that supports collaboration between the care team and patient. Methods A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify web-based care plans for follow-up cancer care that would inform the implementation of a system to share an individualised care plan. We conducted individual consultations with 25 key informants/stakeholders to understand the requirements and challenges of establishing the web-based care plan and to identify the technical options to share the care plan. This was followed by a structured group consultation with 13 key stakeholders to obtain agreement on the model of care and the technical solution to share the care plan. Results We identified five web-based shared care plans for cancer follow-up care. These systems supported the creation and/or access to view or share the care plan via internet log-in, email or hard copy. None of the SCP had interactive functionalities to support collaboration and none of the included papers reported formalised models of shared care between cancer services and primary care. The challenges identified included the security, privacy and sharing of patient information between public health services and primary health care and poor integration of clinical information systems. A primary care practitioners’ care planning system was selected for the pilot as it addressed the challenge of sharing clinical information between the public health system and external clinicians, partially addressed integration (integrated with the primary care clinical information systems but did not integrate with the cancer centre systems), supported collaboration between the care team and patient and was relatively inexpensive. Conclusion Primary care shared care planning systems seem a suitable option for sharing clinical information between a cancer service and primary care practitioners. We plan to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of this interactive shared care plan to support shared cancer follow-up care.

Integrating the primary care physician into cancer follow-up.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 102-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Salner ◽  
Deborah Walker ◽  
Amanda Seltzer ◽  
SarahLena Panzer ◽  
Carrie Stricker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physician ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Follow Up Care

102 Background: After a diagnosis of breast cancer, it can be difficult for patients to understand the role their primary care physician (PCP) should play in their follow up care. Methods: 65 women (mean age 60 years, SD = 10) with breast cancer (stage 0-III) were seen by a nurse practitioner for a 60-90 minute consultative survivorship visit and received a treatment summary and personalized survivorship care plan (SCP) utilizing Carevive Care Planning Systems software. The Carevive system incorporates patient-reported and clinical data to create tailored care plans with personalized recommendations for follow up care and supportive referrals, including direction to follow up with primary care for specific care and health maintenance activities. Approximately 6 weeks following their survivorship care visit, patients completed a survey assessing their use of and satisfaction with the SCP. Patients were advised that the SCP would be mailed to their referring oncologist and primary care physician. Results: Out of 65 sent, 35 surveys have been completed to date. Survivors were diagnosed approximately 10 months prior, and all were within 6 months following completion of treatment. All patients (100%) reported that they read, or planned to read, their survivorship care plan packet carefully. While all care plans included a recommendation to follow up with their PCP, only (71%) of survivors remembered receiving this recommendation. Of those who did, most (74%) had either seen or scheduled an appointment with their PCP. Patients who reported higher anxiety at the time of the survivorship visit were more likely to report that the follow up care plan helped them take action about seeing their PCP (p = .03). Conclusions: Coordination between primary and oncology care providers has previously been shown to improve the quality of care for cancer survivors. SCPs that emphasize the importance of and activities to be undertaken in primary care may help to improve this coordination. Continuation of this research will help to better understand how to integrate the primary care physician into cancer follow up care. Updated data will be shared at time of presentation.

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.

Shared Care For Hematologic Malignancy Survivors: Challenges Between Primary Care Physicians and Hematologist/Oncologists

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2958-2958
Author(s):  
Haleh Kadkhoda ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Emily Van Laar ◽  
Elisa Weiss ◽  
Kevin C. Oeffinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans

Abstract Background Many cancer patients are cured, or have a series of remissions interspersed with periods of re-treatment. In 2006, the Institute of Medicine's From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition recommended comprehensive treatment summaries and follow-up care plans for all cancer survivors. [Parry 2013] There were about 14 million cancer survivors in the US as of January 2012; this population is expected to be 18 million by 2022. [Siegel 2012] Among survivors, 64% have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. [de Moor 2013] Many survivors in this growing population experience physical, psychological, and/or financial long-term/ late effects. The complexities of managing cancer survivors suggest their care should not be conceived as a transition from the hematologist/oncologist to the primary care provider, but rather as an ongoing, flexible collaboration determined by individual survivor needs. Methods Polling surveys were conducted within the 2012 online education activity Sharing Care for Survivors of Hematologic Malignancies, developed by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and Medscape Oncology. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologists (Hem/Oncs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) to illustrate effective communication methods and critical communication points between (Hem/Oncs) and (PCPs). Results As of June 30, 116 Hem/Oncs and 171 PCPs overall responded to the polling surveys, which address current practices and barriers in shared care of cancer survivors. Responses were analyzed to identify gaps in continuity of care among specialties. A summary of responses shows the most significant barrier in effective management is the lack of survivorship care plans and treatment summaries (41% Hem/Oncs vs 51% PCPs). Only 8% and 5% of Hem/Oncs and PCPs, respectively, use survivorship care plans, although both Hem/Oncs and PCPs agreed that such plans and summaries are the most useful communication vehicle among professionals (73% Hem/Oncs vs 67% PCPs). PCPs used patient self-reported data more frequently to document cancer treatment, compared with Hem/Oncs (21% vs 7%, respectively); Hem/Oncs used caregiver reports more often than did PCPs (12% vs 3%, respectively). Similar numbers of Hem/Oncs and PCPs estimated that PCPs spend more than 4 hours of non-reimbursed time weekly researching issues related to patient care (47% Hem/Oncs vs 41% PCPs). Despite progress in electronic health records and widespread Internet access, these physicians most typically use the phone to communicate about the management of cancer survivors (64% Hem/Oncs vs 74% PCPs), followed by faxed/mailed letters, with email ranking as least used. Lack of prompt communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs was the second highest barrier listed by respondents to effective management (22% and 27%, respectively). Conclusion Analysis of the Hem/Onc and PCP learner responses to the polling surveys point to clinical complexities and persistent challenges in the co-management of survivors of hematologic cancers. The challenges relate to communication, technological, healthcare system and healthcare coverage issues.Timely, ongoing communication of the right clinical information between Hem/Oncs and PCPs is essential for optimal management of the growing number of cancer survivors. Hem/Oncs and PCPs devote significant time each week to addressing the cancer survivors' needs; the lack of reimbursed time for PCPs may be an impediment to optimal care. Hem/Oncs and PCPs place a high value on the utility of survivorship care plans; however, they are not widely used. Phone calls are the current preferred communication mode. Until other technological solutions are more widely used to share clinical information, it is important to employ practical solutions, such as providing PCPs with information to help prioritize cancer survivors' follow-up care needs and providing patients/caregivers with brief cancer treatment summaries. Communication strategies to address potentially preventable causes of death, such as cardiac disease and second cancers, as well as acknowledgment and treatment for anxiety and depression related issues [Harrington 2010], which often accompany the uncertainty many cancer survivors live with, are critical. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The Use of Knowledge Management in Healthcare: The Implementation of Shared Care Plans in Electronic Medical Record Systems at One Primary Care Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (04) ◽  
pp. 1350040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connie J. Pascal ◽  
Claire McInerney ◽  
John Orzano ◽  
Elizabeth C. Clark ◽  
Lynn Clemow
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Primary Care Practice ◽  
Electronic Record ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Knowledge Object

A transformation in the way in which primary care is delivered is underway in the US. Across the country primary care practices are grappling with how to change from the traditional physician-directed model to a more patient-centred collaborative style as part of the effort to curb the rise of chronic disease. To date, few tools or techniques exist to help the individual primary care provider make this difficult and complex transformation. One such tool that has arisen is the shared care plan (SCP). As defined in the Taking Action for Learning and Knowledge Management to improve Diabetes Mellitus (TALK/DM) study (a NIDDK funded pilot project to implement SCPs in primary care), the SCP of primary care becomes the product of collaboration between the practice and the patients. The SCP is created by combining knowledge management (KM) techniques and motivational interviewing (MI) health counselling methods to form a new knowledge object. This paper focuses on this aspect of the TALK/DM study and takes a case study approach to explore how one primary care practice is implementing the SCP as knowledge object (both a paper document and an electronic record in the EMR system) in its organisation. This study adds nuance and insight into how knowledge objects such as the SCP can serve as a tool for collaboration in primary care.

Perspectives Among Primary Care Providers and Hematologist/Oncologists in the Coordination of Care for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3156-3156
Author(s):  
Haleh Kadkhoda ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Kevin C. Oeffinger ◽  
Kanti R. Rai ◽  
S. Frieda Pearce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities

Abstract Abstract 3156 Introduction Clinicians have different expectations and perceptions regarding the role of primary care providers (PCPs) and hematologist/ oncologists (Hem/Oncs) in the provision of follow-up and survivorship care for patients with hematologic malignancies, and for the cancer survivor in general [Cheung JCO 2009]. The continuing decline in the number of specialists will require PCP involvement in the care of the patients with hematologic malignancies in particular, as well as cancer survivors in general. An outcomes study investigated barriers to shared care/ co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies and current practices of PCPs and Hem/Oncs regarding communication, provider roles and responsibilities and resources needed to implement effective cancer survivorship care plans. Methods: Internet polling surveys within an educational activity developed by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) and Medscape LLC with outcomes assessment by CE Outcomes, LLC. The activity learning objectives centered on roles and communication touch points for PCPs and Hem/Oncs, strategies and tools for optimal patient care, and recommendations for care of survivors with hematologic malignancies. Case-based education was delivered by an expert panel of hematologist/oncologist and primary-care physicians to illustrate critical communication points between Hem/Onc and PCP. The activity addressed regional variations in care, fragmentation of care, and helped define healthcare provider roles in the shared–care model. Electronic health records (EHR) and a treatment summary form were discussed as methods for effectively communicating a survivorship care plan among healthcare providers. More than 4, 000 physicians participated in the activity; 170 specialists and 587 PCPs were respondents to the survey. Polling questions and outcomes survey addressed barriers and current practices in shared care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Responses of PCPs and Hem/Oncs were aggregated and compared to identify gaps in continuity of care between specialties. Results: A summary of interactivity responses of PCPs (N=587) and Hem/Oncs (N=170) shows the most significant barrier to co-management of patients with hematologic malignancies was “lack of defined roles and responsibilities for PCPs vs specialists” (51.5% Hem/Onc vs 53.2% PCP). Confusion over roles is evident as 55.6% of Hem/Onc respondents expect the oncology specialist to follow the patient during the “watch and wait' period, while 45.8% of PCPs expect the PCP to follow the patient, and 35.4% expect the PCP and specialist to follow the patient together. More than half of PCPs and specialists report that they should co-manage follow up for cancer recurrence. The majority of PCPs and specialists report that standardized communication tools are from “very to extremely important” yet only approximately one third of PCPs and specialists are currently using EHR resources, with a third in the process of implementing EHR in their practices. Conclusions: Barriers to the provision of shared care and co-management of the cancer survivor can be addressed by more clearly defining individual clinician roles and responsibilities. Bridging gaps in the survivorship care plan requires improved communication between Hem/Oncs and PCPs to coordinate “watch and wait” care and follow-up screening, and effective methods to transfer patient records and history including Treatment Summary Forms and EHR. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Breast cancer survivorship care plan: Patient satisfaction with a web-based application.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 50-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Moore ◽  
Anna Carlson ◽  
Naomi Kornhauser ◽  
Sarah E. Schneider ◽  
Eleni Andreopoulou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Survey Results

50 Background: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 3.3 mandates that by 2018, oncologists provide Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) to more than 75% of Stage 1-3 breast cancer survivors. Preparation and delivery of SCPs is time-consuming and requires dedicated staff commitment. Working with PatientsWithPower(PWP), a digital health company supporting patient decision-making for breast cancer, we developed a web-based SCP and surveyed patients regarding their satisfaction with the SCP. The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with the PWP SCP. Methods: SCP’s were prepared using data extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR) and PWP software. A one-page SCP was presented to each patient by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) during a routine visit after patients completed active treatment. Results were reviewed after all surveys were completed. Fifty women with Stage 0-3 breast cancer participated in the IRB approved study and reported their satisfaction with the PWP SCP via online survey. Results: Using patient data in the EMR, the PWP plan took about 45 minutes to prepare. Once completed, NPs spent 10-15 minutes with each patient reviewing the SCP. Patient surveys indicated that 98% of patients felt it was important to receive a SCP, 84% planned to use it to plan follow up management, and 75% intended to share the SCP with their primary care physician. According to patients, the most valuable parts of the SCP were diagnosis and treatment history, and the follow up schedule. More than 70% of women requested additional information about future screening for recurrence, nutrition, and long-term side effect management. 92% of women appreciated the electronic “living document” that can be easily updated at subsequent visits. Conclusions: Presenting SCPs to patients is an essential component of high-quality cancer care. PWP’s online platform facilitates the development and delivery of SCPs by organizing and storing on-going patient data to make future SCP updates easy and efficient. Our patient satisfaction survey results underscore the value of SCPs, particularly for follow-up management and communications with primary care doctors.

scholarly journals Strategies for Successful Survivorship Care Plan Implementation: Results From a Qualitative Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. e462-e483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Birken ◽  
Alecia S. Clary ◽  
Shampa Bernstein ◽  
Jamiyla Bolton ◽  
Miriam Tardif-Douglin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Oncology Practice

Introduction: Care for US cancer survivors is often fragmented, contributing to poor health outcomes. Care and outcomes may improve when survivors and follow-up care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs), written documents containing information regarding cancer diagnosis, treatment, surveillance plans, and health promotion. However, implementing SCPs is challenging. As such, we sought to identify strategies for successfully implementing SCPs. Methods: We measured SCP implementation using performance data from cancer programs participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, an oncologist-led quality assessment and improvement program. We used semistructured interviews with cancer program employees (eg, physicians) to identify strategies for successfully implementing SCPs by comparing approaches in cancer programs that, according to Quality Oncology Practice Initiative performance indicators, developed and delivered SCPs to a relatively small proportion of eligible survivors and their follow-up care providers (ie, low performers; n = 6 participants in five programs) with approaches among programs with better performance (ie, moderate performers; n = 15 participants in nine programs). Results: Ten of 14 cancer programs developed SCPs for ≥ 50% of eligible survivors; two of 14 delivered SCPs to any survivors; and eight of 14 delivered SCPs to ≥ 25% of follow-up care providers. We found that moderate performers proactively addressed SCP requirements, leveraged requirements to improve survivorship care, set internal targets, automated implementation, had active leaders and champions, and tasked appropriate employees with SCP implementation. Conclusion: SCP implementation remains challenging. We identified strategies for successfully implementing SCPs. Future research should examine how cancer programs have achieved these strategies; findings could contribute to an understanding of the changes needed to implement comprehensive survivorship care.

scholarly journals Follow-up Plan as a Necessity for Nursing Care: A Decrease of Stressin Mothers with their Children in Pediatric Surgical Units

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Forogh Okhovat ◽  
Zahra Abdeyazdan ◽  
Mahboobeh Namnabati
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Surgical Units ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Experimental Group

AbstractIntroduction: Children are vulnerable to damage. Health problems in children, especially ifnecessitate hospitalization, can cause stress in their parents that may persist even long afterdischarge. This study aimed to investigate the effect of implementing follow-up care plans onstress in mothers of children discharged from pediatric surgical units. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted on 64 mothers whose children were hospitalized in the surgical wards of two educational hospitals affiliated to Isfahan Universityof Medical Sciences, Iran. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups of controland experimental. The data collection tools included a demographic data questionnaire andstress response inventory (SRI). The interventions were performed using a four-stage follow-upcare plan. The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 13 and descriptive statistics, independent t-test, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and least significant difference (LSD) test. Results: The mean (SD) stress scores of the experimental group were 64.1 (28.8), 20.4 (12.4),and 11.6 (7.5) before, one week, and one month after the intervention, respectively. In the control group, these scores were 61.2 (29.2), 59.9 (25.5), and 46.7 (19.1), respectively. The results showed the mean score was significantly lower than that of the control group at oneweek and one month after the intervention in the experimental group. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that a follow-up care plan can decrease the stress levelsof mothers as a continuity of patient care even after discharge.

Enhancing the cancer survivors' experience with tailored supportive services.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Patricia Chapman ◽  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Late Effects ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Education Needs

236 Background: Maintaining health and well-being is a primary goal throughout the cancer experience. The dynamic nature of a survivor’s trajectory makes it difficult to tailor education and supportive care services to their actual needs. We sought to determine information and education needs preferred by survivors who had returned to their communities after completing their treatment. Methods: We partnered with survivors' advocacy groups to conduct a needs assessment with adult survivors attending a community survivorship conference. Once eligibility was confirmed, verbal consent was obtained, and instructions were given on survey completion. A modified version of the NCI Follow-Up Care Use among Survivors survey was used. Analyses focused on clinical/sociodemographic characteristics, preferences for follow-up care, information/education needs, and sources for receiving health information. Simple descriptives were used to report the results. Results: We distributed 284 questionnaires and 169 were returned, yielding a 59.5% response rate. Respondents were mostly female (79.9%), married (58.6%), college educated (81.7%) and had ver 10 post-treatment years (47.3%). 51.3% were diagnosed with breast cancer and 81.8% reported being in good to excellent health. 57.3% had follow-up cancer care, 30.8% did not recall having a discussion with their provider about late-effects, and 57.6% reported not receiving a summary care plan. 83.7% preferred to have the same provider follow them and 95.2% reported their oncologist would be their ideal doctor. Survivors preferred more information on ways to improve memory/concentration (83.9%), energy/exercise (83.3%), and maximizing the benefits of their survivorship care plan (74.6%). Preferred information sources were health care providers (78.0%) and the internet (39.3%). Conclusions: These survivors reported a high level of unmet information needs related to self-management of physical symptoms. Patient-provider communication about late-effects and benefits of survivorship care plans continues to be inadequate. Physicians and other providers are in ideal positions to initiate conversations about supportive survivorship care early in the patient experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document