scholarly journals A quality improvement pilot to initiate treatment summaries and survivorship care plans in oncology services in South Australia

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13
Author(s):  
Nadia Corsini ◽  
Chantelle C Hislop ◽  
Tracey N Doherty ◽  
Marion C Eckert ◽  
Kate Cameron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans

scholarly journals Age and Cancer Treatment Are Related to Receiving Treatment Summaries and Survivorship Care Plans in Female Young Adult Cancer Survivors

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenya Shliakhtsitsava ◽  
Sally A. D. Romero ◽  
Brian W. Whitcomb ◽  
Jessica R. Gorman ◽  
Samantha Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Young Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Adult Cancer Survivors ◽  
Young Adult Cancer

Using Quality Improvement Methodology to Implement Survivorship Care Plans

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e117-e123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Moore Smith ◽  
Debra L. Friedman ◽  
Barron L. Patterson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Pediatric Oncology ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Accreditation Standard ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Cancer Registry Data ◽  
Time Period ◽  
American College Of Surgeons

PURPOSE: Accreditation requirements for cancer centers by the American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer have included provision of survivorship care plans (SCPs) to patients treated with curative intent soon after completion of therapy. These were traditionally provided in a dedicated survivorship clinic for our pediatric oncology patients later in the survivorship time period. Our goal was to increase timely provision of SCPs to eligible patients in our acute care pediatric oncology clinic and to have this serve as a bridge to longer-term survivorship care. METHODS: Our pediatric oncology clinic used quality improvement methodology to implement a process for creation of SCPs. We defined eligible patients on the basis of curative intent. Cancer registry data were queried to find eligible patients, and chart reviews were done weekly. A P chart and run chart were used to monitor our process for creation of plans and overall completion rate, respectively. RESULTS: During the intervention period, we increased the percentage of eligible patients with an SCP from 28% on June 30, 2017, to 53% by December 31, 2017. Since that time, we have continued to increase the percentage of patients with SCPs, reaching 69% by June 30, 2019. CONCLUSION: By using quality improvement methodology, our pediatric oncology clinic was able to change its clinical practice and implement a sustainable process for provision of SCPs and survivorship planning earlier in the post-treatment course, and meet the Commission on Cancer accreditation standard.

scholarly journals Metrics to evaluate treatment summaries and survivorship care plans: A scorecard

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 1475-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven C. Palmer ◽  
Linda A. Jacobs ◽  
Angela DeMichele ◽  
Betsy Risendal ◽  
Alison F. Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans

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.

scholarly journals Oncology Medical Home: ASCO and COA Standards

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00167
Author(s):  
Kim Woofter ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Kerin Adelson ◽  
Ronda Bowman ◽  
Rachel Brodie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Medical Home ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Pathways ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans

PURPOSE: To provide Standards on the basis of evidence and expert consensus for a pilot of the Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program. The OMH model is a system of care delivery that features coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care and includes a process for measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement. The OMH pilot is intended to inform further refinement of Standards for OMH model implementation. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on the topics of OMH, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Using this evidence base and an informal consensus process, the Expert Panel developed a set of OMH Standards. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: Three comparative peer-reviewed studies of OMH met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the results from 16 studies of clinical pathways and one systematic review of survivorship care plans informed the evidence review. Limitations of the evidence base included the small number of studies of OMH and lack of longer-term outcomes data. More data were available to inform the specific Standards for pathways and survivorship care; however, outcomes were mixed for the latter intervention. The Expert Panel concluded that in the future, practices should be encouraged to publish the results of OMH interventions in peer-reviewed journals to improve the evidence base. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for OMH in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, equitable and comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and chemotherapy safety. Additional information, including a Standards implementation manual, is available at www.asco.org/standards .

Evaluating Readability Scores of Treatment Summaries and Cancer Survivorship Care Plans

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00789
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Dori L. Klemanski ◽  
Kristine K. Browning
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
College Education ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
College Graduate ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
11Th Grade

PURPOSE: Treatment Summaries and Survivorship Care Plans (TS/SCPs) may be difficult for patients to comprehend because of readability, magnitude of information, and complex medical verbiage. METHODS: Readability scores were calculated for TS/SCP templates including ASCO, Oncolink, Journey Forward, and the authors' institution. The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level, Coleman-Liau Index, and Gunning Fog index were used to assess readability. RESULTS: The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease scores for the blank ASCO templates ranged from 47.4 to 53.3, requiring a reading grade level of 10-12. Coleman-Liau and Gunning Fog scores showed that an 11th grade reading level is essential, and SMOG required a college education to comprehend the ASCO templates. For the colorectal case exemplar, Oncolink's template resulted in the lowest SMOG score (11.3; 11th grade), Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level (11; 11th grade), and Coleman-Liau score (12; 12th grade). Journey Forward's TS/SCP template scored the highest on the SMOG (21.2; college graduate), Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level (18.3; college graduate), and Gunning-Fog index (25.8; college graduate) compared with other TS/SCPs. CONCLUSION: The existing TS/SCP templates used by US cancer centers are written at a grade level beyond the comprehension of most adults. Cancer care teams should assess TS/SCP content for readability and use of plain language and reduce medical jargon.

Treatment Summaries and Survivorship Care Plans: The Approach by the Commission on Cancer to Increase Use

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence N. Shulman ◽  
Linda Ferris ◽  
Danny M. Takanishi ◽  
Daniel McKellar
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans

The implementation of CoC standard 3.3 represents a paradigm shift in the care of cancer survivors, with a statement that treatment summaries and survivorship care plans are important documents for patient care and should be required.

Potential Benefits of Treatment Summaries for Survivors' Health and Information Needs: Results From a LIVESTRONG Survey

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Rechis ◽  
Ellen B. Beckjord ◽  
Stephanie Nutt
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Health Care Teams ◽  
Treatment Summaries ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Potential Benefits

Cancer survivors cannot benefit from treatment summaries or survivorship care plans if health care teams are not able to execute them. The authors discuss aims to help bridge this gap and equip survivors with the best resources possible at the start of primary treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document