scholarly journals Rural Primary Care Offices and Cancer Survivorship Care: Part of the Care Trajectory for Cancer Survivors

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 233339281882291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maresi Berry-Stoelzle ◽  
Kim Parang ◽  
Jeanette Daly
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Female Physicians ◽  
Skin Changes ◽  
Care Plans

Background: A cancer diagnosis is a monumental event in a patient’s life and with the number of cancer survivors increasing; most of these patients will be taken care of by a primary care provider at some point after their cancer therapy. The purpose of this study is to identify primary care physician’s needs to care for a patient who has had cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of the physician members of the Iowa Research Network was conducted. The survey was designed to measure physician confidence in cancer survivor’s care, office strategies regarding cancer survivorship care, and resources available for patients with cancer. Two hundred seventy-four Iowa Research Network members were invited to participate in this survey. Results: Eighty-two physicians (30%) completed the questionnaire with 96% reporting that they are aware of their patient’s cancer survivorship status. Seventy-one physicians reported they were aware of cancer survivorship status by an oncologist sending a note to the office, 68 being diagnosed in their office, 61 by the patient keeping the office apprised, and 15 receiving a survivorship care plan. Physicians reported the top changes in a cancer survivor’s physical health as fatigue (81%) and pain (59%). Sixty-two physicians reported not feeling confident for managing chemobrain, cardiotoxicity (71%), and skin changes (35%). Male physicians were significantly more confident managing patients’ skin changes ( P = .049) and musculoskeletal disturbances than female physicians ( P = .027), while female physicians were significantly more confident managing early-onset menopause than male physicians ( P = .027). Conclusion: Most respondents are aware of their patients who are cancer survivors and are mostly confident in the care they provide for them related to long-term effects and side effects of cancer therapies with limited receipt of cancer survivorship care plans.

Perceived value of cancer survivorship care among Asians and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e22522-e22522
Author(s):  
Jared David Acoba ◽  
Sharon Tamashiro ◽  
Marci Chock
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Native Hawaiian ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plans ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans

e22522 Background: Numerous studies have evaluated the impact of cancer survivorship care. However, no study to date has focused on Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) cancer survivors. It has been well documented that Asian and NH/PI patients often suffer from inferior cancer outcomes compared to White patients, and differences in their experience with cancer survivorship care could contribute to this disparity. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1410 cancer survivors who were treated at a community cancer center with curative intent and who had received survivorship care plans between Jan 2014 and June 2018. The 26-item questionnaire evaluated patients’ perception of various aspects of their survivorship care plan and follow-up physician visits. All responses were anonymous. Results: Of the 360 patients who responded, 24% were White, 54% Asian, and 13% NH/PI. Compared to Whites, Asian and NH/PI patients were younger (p = 0.004), less educated (p = 0.004), and reported a lower income (p < 0.0005). Among all patients, 62% reported that the survivorship care plan was “very helpful” and 86% rated their satisfaction with physician follow-up visits as “very good” to “excellent.” There were no racial differences in satisfaction with either survivorship care plan or physician follow-up. In a multivariate binary logistic regression, Asians and NH/PI patients were significantly more likely to rate ongoing survivorship care as helpful compared to Whites, OR 4.08 (95%CI, 2.13-7.82). Conclusions: There were no racial differences in patient satisfaction with their survivorship care plans and follow-up care. However, Asian and NH/PI patients valued ongoing cancer survivorship care follow-up significantly more than White patients. Whether more extensive survivorship care would lead to improved outcomes among Asian and NH/PI cancer patients should be investigated further.

Primary care providers' awareness and utilization of survivorship care plans.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Alicia R. Rosales ◽  
Tina Schaal ◽  
Shelby Darland ◽  
Dan Sayam Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Plans

94 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 requires that all patients who complete cancer treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). To aid in care coordination, the standard also requires that the SCP be provided to the patient’s primary care provider (PCP). St. Luke’s Mountain States Institute (MSTI) has been providing patients and PCPs with SCPs for more than 5 years. Other local accredited cancer centers also provide SCPs for their patients. Methods: In partnership with the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, MSTI created an online survey aimed at assessing the utilization of the SCP in primary care clinics and the PCP’s comfort level carrying out the recommended surveillance. The survey link was distributed through email to approximately 300 PCPs across a large geographical area in varying sized practices. Results: Sixty three responses were received in 3 weeks with 46 responses from physicians and 17 responses from advanced practice providers. All of the respondents said they care for cancer survivors in their practice but 54% have never received a SCP. Twenty nine reported having received a SCP and answered 8 questions related to how they use the SCP in practice. The majority refer to the SCP to monitor for recurrence and 52% use it as a tool for coordination of care. Forty eight percent use the SCP to manage co-morbid conditions. Ninety-five percent of all respondents indicated they feel comfortable carrying out a surveillance plan provided by the oncologist for patients 2 years out from treatment. Sixty-four percent indicated they would like additional education about caring for cancer survivors. A common theme in comments included the desire for improved communication between the oncologists and PCPs. Conclusions: This standard was created in part to improve care coordination between oncologists and PCPs. More than have of the PCPs in the MSTI service area have not seen a SCP for their patients. Most indicated they are comfortable providing surveillance if they have a clear follow-up care plan from the oncologist. More than half want additional information about caring for cancer survivors. Future exploration could include assessment of barriers to communication and utilizing the SCP in practice.

Growing a cancer survivorship care plan program.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 58-58
Author(s):  
Claire Michelle Sutherby (Bennett)
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Oncology Nurse ◽  
Nurse Navigator

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.

Improving patient participation in a breast cancer survivorship program at a safety net hospital.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 60-60
Author(s):  
Shakuntala Shrestha ◽  
Pam Khosla ◽  
Janos Molnar ◽  
Maria Eugenia Corona ◽  
Sofia M Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Safety Net Hospital

60 Background: To provide comprehensive services and meet Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requirements, we developed and evaluated a customized breast cancer SCP template and delivery model. Objective: To implement and pilot test survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery for breast cancer survivors. Methods: Clinicians at a safety net hospital partnered with investigators at an academic institution to start a breast cancer survivorship care program. We developed an SCP template that is CoC-complaint and responsive to input gathered in 2 focus groups with breast cancer survivors (n = 12) and interviews with staff (n = 8). Oncologists and nurses identified and referred English-speaking women who had completed breast cancer treatment. Participants completed baseline measures prior to receiving individualized SCPs in a survivorship consultation visit with a dedicated APN. In response to high no-show rates, we expanded clinic scheduling to harmonize with participants' other medical appointments. Interim feasibility results for our ongoing study are presented here. Results: A total of 154 patients were screened to reach target enrollment (n= 80) within 20 months. Participant median age was 60 ± 11; 71% were African American, 14% Hispanic; 11% Non-Hispanic White and 92% had household incomes < $20,000. Average times were: 30 ± 13.4 minutes for abstracting patient clinical information in preparation for the survivorship visit; 25 ± 16 minutes for completing individual SCPs; 22±7.65 minutes to review / deliver the SCPs with patients. The difference in no-show rate between first 3-month recruitment period (clinic limited to one day/week) and next 17 months (clinic appointment expanded to accommodate patients' schedule) was statistically significant, p = 0.028. Conclusions: Tailoring SCP templates and delivery models to the needs of a safety net hospital aided the sustainability of a new survivorship clinic. Patient non-adherence to scheduled visits was significantly improved by expanding clinic hours. Significant clinician time was spent preparing SCPs and a level 4 visit (25 minutes) does not adequately reflect this effort. This study is funded by the American Cancer Society, Illinois Division (Grant# 254698).

Psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors who receive a treatment summary or survivorship care plan.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 217-217
Author(s):  
Sarah C. Reed ◽  
Janice Bell ◽  
Robin L. Whitney ◽  
Emma Blackmon ◽  
Katherine K. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Psychosocial Outcomes ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Psychosocial Concerns ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Treatment Summary

217 Background: Treatment summaries (TSs) and survivorship care plans (SCPs) were expected to bridge patient-provider communication challenges and better address the unique needs of cancer survivors. While interest in TSs and SCPs has been growing, acceptance and implementation has been slow and findings from studies of their effectiveness have been mixed, overall. Our study examines independent associations of receipt of TSs and SCPs with psychosocial outcomes of cancer survivors. Methods: The study sample included survivors completing the 2012 LIVESTRONG Survey for People Affected by Cancer (n = 5,156). Logistic regression was used to model three distinct psychosocial outcomes: having relationship concerns (yes/no), distress (defined as a rating of 6 or higher on the NCCN Distress Thermometer), and moderate or severe cancer-specific worry (yes/no) as functions of TS receipt, SCP receipt and important confounding variables (age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, income, education and health insurance). Results: Among cancer survivors, only 51% received a TS and only 16% received a SCP. Survivors who received a TS or SCP had significantly lower odds of relationship concerns (TS: OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.52, 0.75; SCP: OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.57, 0.94); distress (TS: OR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.65, 0.85; SCP: OR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.68, 0.97); and moderate or severe cancer-specific worry (TS: OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.85; SCP: OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67-0.92). Other covariates consistently associated with psychosocial concerns included younger age, being unemployed and income ≤ $60,000. Conclusions: Many cancer survivors do not receive a TS or SCP. Receipt of either document was associated with reporting better psychosocial outcomes, suggesting that TSs and SCPs may not be reaching cancer survivors with psychosocial health problems. Survivors with psychosocial concerns may benefit from targeted survivorship care.

Internal medicine residents’ awareness on cancer survivorship care plan: A cross sectional study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23011-e23011
Author(s):  
Ivy Riano ◽  
Hugo Pomares-Millan ◽  
Klaorat Prasongdee ◽  
Robin Park ◽  
Narjust Duma
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Program Type ◽  
Significant Difference

e23011 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) is recommended as a tool for communication between oncologists and primary care physicians. According to the Institute of Medicine, it is necessary to lead a cultural shift to provide SCPs to all cancer survivors to improve the transition from the oncology clinic to primary care practices. Studies suggest residency training curriculums for internal medicine (IM) are lacking education about cancer survivorship and SCPs. We aimed to assess the awareness of trainees toward SCPs. Methods: A survey was distributed to IM trainees in an outpatient setting. We stratified the descriptive analyses by program type (transitional [TY] and categorical [CT] trainees) and year of training. Differences in the proportions were tested appropriately. Analyses were conducted in R v3.6.2. Results: 37 trainees were interviewed; 32.4% were TY and 67.6% CT trainees. A 54% were PGY-1, 21.6% PGY-2, and 24.3% PGY-3. None of the trainees reported following a SCP for cancer-free patients nor to use SCP as a source to obtain cancer-related information. 78.3% and 92.6% reported that they were not taught during residency or medical school about SCPs, respectively. 84.8% informed that cancer-related information was inaccessible during the encounter with patients; sources cancer diagnosis and treatment information included: patients/family members (97.3%), outside records (83.8%), and oncology notes (86.5%). By program type, there was a statistically significant difference between TY v. CT groups (p = 0.017) regarding how often cancer-related issues were discussed with patients; the TY group mainly reported ‘Not at all’ whether CT were more likely to engage in discussion about cancer. Differences in the trainees’ comfort level answering patients concerns about cancer recurrence were observed between TY v. CT trainees but was not statistically significant (p = 0.864). Most common barriers to discuss cancer history and/or SCP were insufficient information from patients (83.8%), perceived inaccuracy from patients’ information (81.1%), unclear if patient has a SCP (81.1%), lack of SCP in medical record (75.7%), and trainees’ low medical knowledge about side effects of cancer therapies (70.3%). Conclusions: The awareness of cancer SCP among the IM trainees is limited, and many have not accessed or received training in SCPs. Efforts intended to facilitate SCP use and educate residents about cancer survivorship may be effective to increase the comfort level of trainees managing the growing number of survivors and improve transition from oncology to primary care clinics.[Table: see text]

The impact of survivorship care plans on knowledge among breast cancer survivors.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Kaleigh Bulloch ◽  
Melinda Irwin ◽  
Anees B. Chagpar ◽  
Nina Ruth Horowitz ◽  
Brigid K. Killelea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Patient Knowledge ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
The Impact

124 Background: Despite the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that all cancer survivors be provided with a survivorship care plan (SCP), there is limited information as to whether SCPs improve knowledge. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of SCPs on patient knowledge regarding tumor stage, cancer treatment and potential risk of long-term side effects, surveillance recommendations, and perceived knowledge of their therapy. Methods: 75 English-speaking women over the age of 18 were enrolled in this prospective study. The participants’ treatment progress was tracked through the electronic medical record and used to create the SCP, which was given to them at the completion of treatment (defined as the time patients had completed radiation and/or chemotherapy treatments and initiated on hormonal therapy, if applicable). Knowledge of stage, treatments, potential side effects, and surveillance recommendations were assessed before receiving the SCP and again two months later. Accuracy of responses was compared using the McNemar test. Results: The median patient age was 56.8 ± 12.5 and 47.1% were stage I, 37.3% were stage II, and 15.7% were stage III. Participants were statistically more accurate in identifying their stage after receiving their SCP than at baseline (72.6% vs. 92.2%, p = 0.0016). While many patients were more accurate in the identification of the cancer treatment they received after SCP, the only significant improvement was in identifying 5-Fluorouracil as chemotherapy received (65.5% vs. 89.7%, p=0.0196). Patients were more accurate in identifying potential side effects but were only statistically more accurate at identifying leukemia as a risk factor (36.0% vs. 46.9%, p=0.0348). At baseline and follow up patients perceived that they had a high level of understanding as it related to their cancer stage (60.4%, and 66.7%), treatment (69.4%, and 71.4%), and surveillance recommendations (61.4%, and 54.6%). Conclusions: SCPs appear to improve patient knowledge in several important areas including basic and specific treatment details, surveillance recommendations, and potential side effects. Delivery of a SCPs is one strategy to improve knowledge of treatments received.

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.

Evaluation of electronic care plan usage and usefulness among breast cancer survivors.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 83-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Sesto ◽  
William Gray Hocking ◽  
Douglas Wiegmann ◽  
Thomas Y Yen ◽  
Mindy Gribble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Survivorship Care Plan ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Treatment Summary

83 Background: Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended to improve communication between breast cancer survivors (BCS), primary care, and oncology. Objective evaluation of survivor access of specific care plan content is challenging as commonly-used formats (e.g., paper or electronic file) prevent tracking of usage. This project aimed to evaluate the usage and usefulness of an electronic survivorship care plan (eSCP) that could track access and pages visited. Methods: We recruited 128 BCS from outpatient oncology clinics. 121 BCS received eSCP access via an online secure patient portal; seven received paper copies and are not included in this analysis. The research team customized the portal to track eSCP usage and page visits during the study period (at least 12 weeks of eSCP access). The eSCP consisted of four internal pages (Guide, Treatment Summary, Followup Plan, and Glossary) plus 21 external hyperlinks to survivorship resources. eSCP usefulness and understandability were evaluated using 10-item Likert scales: 1 (not at all useful/very hard to understand to 10 very useful/very easy to understand). Results: 90 out of 121 (74.38%) participants accessed the eSCP. The majority accessed the eSCP within two days of receiving access (N = 70/90, 77.8%) and visited 1 to 3 times (N = 81/90, 90%). Treatment Summary was the most frequently visited internal page (158 visits by 69 participants). Other page usage: Followup Plan (124 visits by 65 participants), Guide (113 visits by 62 participants), and Glossary (46 visits by 31 participants). 34 participants (37.78%) accessed external pages from the eSCP. Participants perceived the overall care plan as useful (8.78, 95% CI [8.38, 9.19]) and easy to understand (8.81, 95% CI [8.47, 9.16]). Conclusions: We found high usage rates among BCS provided an eSCP and the majority perceived the eSCP as useful and easy to understand. Based on favorable assessment and use, it is reasonable for eSCPs to serve as a tool to facilitate communication and care coordination for survivors, especially as access to and use of mobile device technology and electronic patient health portals increase. Minority and rural survivors access and use of such features may require further research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document