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.

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.

Culturally Relevant Online Cancer Education Supports Tribal Primary Care Providers to Reduce Their Cancer Risk and Share Information About Cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483992110278
Author(s):  
Katie Cueva ◽  
Melany Cueva ◽  
Laura Revels ◽  
Michelle Hensel ◽  
Mark Dignan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Culturally Relevant ◽  
Cancer Education ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cancer Information ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Share Information

Background Culturally relevant education is an opportunity to reduce health disparities, and online learning is an emerging avenue for health promotion. In 2014–2019, a team based at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium developed, implemented, and evaluated culturally relevant online cancer education modules with, and for, Alaska’s tribal primary care providers. The project was guided by Indigenous Ways of Knowing and the principles of community-based participatory action research and was evaluated in alignment with empowerment theory. About 265 unique learners completed 1,898 end-of-module evaluation surveys between March 2015 and August 2019, and 13 people completed a follow-up survey up to 28 months post module completion. Key Findings Learners described the modules as culturally respectful and informative and reported feeling more knowledgeable and comfortable talking about cancer as a result of the modules. About 98% of the learners planned to reduce their cancer risk because of the modules, and all follow-up survey respondents had reduced their risk, including by quitting smoking, getting screened for cancer, eating healthier, and exercising more. About 98% of the learners planned to share information with their patients, families, friends, and community members because of the modules, with all follow-up survey respondents indicating that they had shared information about cancer from the modules. Implications for Practice and Further Research Culturally relevant online modules have the capacity for positive behavioral change and relatively high correlations between intent and behavior change. Future research could determine which aspects of the modules catalyzed reduced cancer risk and increased dissemination of cancer information.

"Team Dynamics, Clinical Work Satisfaction, and Care Coordination Between Primary Care Providers"

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (1) ◽  
pp. 13538
Author(s):  
Hummy Song ◽  
Molly Ryan ◽  
Shalini A Tendulkar ◽  
Alyna T Chien ◽  
Josephine Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Work Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Team Dynamics ◽  
Care Providers

Integrating primary care and cancer care in survivorship: A collaborative approach.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 103-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Sussman ◽  
Mary L McBride ◽  
Jeffrey Sisler ◽  
Grace Kim ◽  
Laura Game ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Functional Integration ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Integration ◽  
The Impact

103 Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) have an important role in the provision of survivorship care. While there is evidence to support the feasibility and safety of PCP-led survivorship care, there are gaps in knowledge about how to best integrate providers to support transitions, enhance quality of care, increase system efficiencies, and improve patient and provider satisfaction. Methods: A pan-Canadian study comprised of three projects has been initiated to address three key aspects of care integration, based on a previously described system performance framework. Functional integration will be studied through the evaluation of electronic survivorship care plans using a prospective cohort of breast and colorectal cancer patients with pre and post measures of knowledge, care coordination, and satisfaction. Vertical integration will be evaluated through a series of descriptive case studies to document structures and processes that are currently in place to support PCP re-referral to regional cancer centres. Clinical integration will be studied through the development and evaluation of an interspecialty survivorship training curriculum for oncology and family medicine trainees. Results: Functional integration: Development of an electronic platform for care plan outputs is complete. Two sites in Ontario (ON) and one in British Columbia (BC) have been selected to study the impact on 200 patients and their providers. Vertical integration: Using a study-specific interview guide, 48 semi-structured key informant interviews have been successfully conducted in ON; 15 interviews are planned for Manitoba (MB) and 15 for BC. Clinical Integration: a National Advisory Committee was established and needs assessments were performed with postgraduate program directors, cancer survivors, and trainees using online surveys and focus groups. A blended learning curriculum is being piloted in MB, ON, and BC in 2015. Conclusions: Integrating primary care and cancer care in survivorship requires a collaborative approach that begins in residency, supports PCPs with clear mechanisms for re-entry, and optimizes communication. This study will inform approaches to enhancing provider integration and survivorship care.

Cancer survivorship algorithms as clinical tools for primary care providers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 100-100
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
The Impact

100 Background: Clinical decision tools (CDTs) such as survivorship algorithms may be valuable resources for primary care providers who provide post-treatment care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to assess providers’ perceptions, adoption, and satisfaction with clinical practice algorithms tailored to site-specific cancer survivorship clinics. Methods: Eligible providers were those assigned to one of 9 site-specific survivorship clinics, (breast, colorectal, genitourinary, gynecology, head and neck, lymphoma, melanoma, stem cell transplant, and thyroid). Potential respondents were invited to participate by emails. Voluntary return of the survey indicated a provider’s informed consent. Providers had the choice to participate by clicking on a link embedded in an email. Once the link was activated, the user was taken to a 10-item survey with questions asking about the usability, awareness, and satisfaction with the algorithms specific to their clinic. Descriptive statistics (i.e. frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize the responses. Results: Of 35 providers assigned in the survivorship clinics, 18 responded resulting in a 51% response rate. The majority of respondents (94.4%) were aware of the survivorship algorithms specific to their clinic. Over 75% reported using the algorithms occasionally (16.7%), frequently (33%) and always (33.3%). The major barrier to using the algorithms was a lack of awareness on to access the algorithms. Over half of the providers (55.6%) preferred using the digital versions of the algorithms. 68% strongly agreed the algorithms were practical to use and implement in their clinical setting. The majority of providers’ reported being satisfied (62.5%) or very satisfied (25.0%) with the algorithms tailored to their site specific clinic. Conclusions: Survivorship practice algorithms were perceived as useful clinical resources to deliver coordinated care to cancer survivors with diverse cancer diagnoses. Future work is needed to determine the impact of the algorithms on providers’ practice with cancer survivors.

Faster and better: Improving the diagnostic phase of lung cancer at a system level.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 115-115
Author(s):  
Melissa Kaan ◽  
Claire Holloway ◽  
Julie Gilbert ◽  
Vicky Simanovski ◽  
Garth Matheson
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Rule Out

115 Background: For many patients going through diagnostic testing for cancer, the time from suspicion to diagnosis or rule-out, can be a confusing and anxious time. In 2007, Cancer Care Ontario began investing in the implementation of diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) across Ontario, Canada to improve the quality of care during the diagnostic phase of lung cancer. DAPs consist of multidisciplinary healthcare teams that manage and coordinate a patient’s diagnostic care from testing to a definitive diagnosis. The objectives of the DAPs are to: 1) decrease time from suspicion to diagnosis or resolution; 2) optimize the patient’s experience during the diagnostic process; 3) optimize satisfaction and experience among primary care providers and specialists; and 4) provide a sustainable solution by offering good value for money. Today over 35,000 patients have been diagnosed in one of the 18 lung DAPs that exist across the province. Methods: The implementation of DAPs featured the introduction of a patient navigator to act as the primary point of contact for patients, improve the patient experience and ensure their patients were progressing through any required diagnostic imaging and consultations in a timely manner. Cancer Care Ontario also engaged with primary care providers to refer patients with findings suspicious for lung cancer to DAPs as early as possible to ensure they benefited from organized assessment. Cancer Care Ontario has collected patient level data to measure wait times and implemented a patient survey to assess patient experience. Results: In the past five years, the median wait time from referral to a lung DAP to diagnosis or rule out has decreased by 19% to 24 days and the 90th %tile has decreased by 28% to 51 days. The large majority of patients have had a positive experience with their DAPs, with 95% of patients scoring their experience in the diagnostic process as “good” or “excellent”. Conclusions: The implementation of DAPs across the province is seen as a valuable component of quality of care by improving the diagnostic phase of cancer. The sustainability of the DAP model is demonstrated by the continued improvements in access and maintained patient experience in spite of growing volumes (91% increase in the past five years).

Identifying critical data elements for a provincial transition plan from a primary care perspective.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 54-54
Author(s):  
Stacey Hunter ◽  
Stefanie De Rossi ◽  
Angelika Gollnow ◽  
Grace Kim ◽  
Ed Kucharski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Provincial Government ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Transition Plan ◽  
Data Elements

54 Background: Cancer Care Ontario is the provincial government advisor on the cancer and renal systems, as well as access to care for key health services. Enhancing flow of patient information and care plans are priorities to improve continuity and quality of survivorship care. Cancer Care Ontario’s Primary and Community Care and Survivorship Programs have initiated work to identify required information that primary care providers (PCPs) should receive about a patient’s cancer care at the point of transition back to primary care. Methods: Fifteen focus groups were conducted with PCPs in Ontario using a guide to facilitate group discussions on the utility and content of transition plans. Based on the collective feedback, thematic analysis was conducted on data elements that were expressed as critical with 12 common themes identified. Transition plan materials across Ontario’s Local Health Integration Networks and relevant jurisdictions in Canada and the United States were also reviewed to abstract a list of all documented data elements. A comprehensive matrix of data elements was then created by incorporating the list of all documented data elements with the 12 common themes. Using this matrix, prevalence of data elements amongst reviewed materials was ranked by frequency. A Modified-Delphi approach was used to validate and prioritize data elements with Cancer Care Ontario provincial and regional primary care clinical leadership. Results: In total, 21 documents were reviewed and 30 standard data elements were identified and ranked by frequency. The 10 most frequent data elements were classified as required for a standard transition plan. The remaining data elements were presented to 29 Cancer Care Ontario Cancer Leads to reach consensus on a core set of data elements to be required for inclusion in a transition plan. Conclusions: Essential data elements for inclusion in a transition plan have been identified from the perspective of PCPs. Next steps include engaging patient and family advisors, oncologists, and health system administrators through a phased regional consultation process. The role of synoptic reporting for a future standard survivorship transition plan will also be explored.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document