Toward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty care

Patient reports of cancer care coordination in rural Hawaii

PURPOSE

Rural residents experience disproportionate burdens of cancer, and poorer cancer health outcomes in rural populations are partly attributed to care delivery challenges. Cancer patients in rural areas often experience unique challenges with care coordination. In this study, we explored patient reports of care coordination among rural Hawaii patients with cancer and compared rural and urban patients' perceptions of cancer care coordination.

METHODS

80 patients receiving active treatment for cancer from rural Hawaii participated in a care coordination study in 2020-2021. Participants completed the Care Coordination Instrument, a validated oncology patient questionnaire.

FINDINGS

Mean age of rural cancer patients was 63.0 (SD = 12.1), and 57.7% were female. The most common cancer types were breast and GI. Overall, rural and urban patients' perceptions of care coordination were comparable (p > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between rural and urban patients' perceptions in communication and navigation aspects of care coordination (p = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). Specific differences included a second opinion consultation, clinical trial considerations, and after-hours care. 43% of rural patients reported traveling by air for part or all of their cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that while overall perceptions of care coordination were similar between rural and urban patients, differential perceptions of specific care coordination areas between rural and urban patients may reflect limited access to care for rural patients. Improving access to cancer care may be a potential strategy to enhance care coordination for rural patients and ultimately address rural-urban cancer health disparities.

Multidisciplinary team meetings in Hematology: a national mixed-methods study

Multidisciplinary team meetings are a current international practice in cancer care, but to date, few data exist on the specificity of its practice in hematology.In this manuscript, we present the result of the first national study, realized with quantitative and qualitative methods in France, which brings new insights in order to improve the collegial decision-making process.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects, and a specific focus on hematological particularities is warranted to truly improve process.Background Understanding the Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) process in different medical specialties facilitates the identification of core factors supporting effective MDTM work. Our mixed-methods study explores the participants' perceptions of hematology MDTMs.Design Online questionnaires collected data concerning the decision-making process, benefits and inconveniences of MDTMs for both patients and professionals. Semi-directive phone interviews were conducted and analyzed, thereby supplying qualitative data.Results A total of 205 professionals responded to the questionnaire and 22 participated in the qualitative interviews. The data indicate the unique characteristics of hematology, including a specific definition of collegiality, the frequent solicitation of expert advice and the anticipation of treatment even prior to the occurrence of MDTMs. Additional information concerning patients' wishes and psychosocial conditions are also needed. Participants emphasize the subjective aspects and the impact of the climate of MDTMs on medical decisions.Conclusion Although MDTMs are recognized to be a valuable tool, organizational and relational issues may interfere with their efficiency.To improve the effectiveness of MDTMs, the needs to focus on complex cases, to enhance patient centeredness and teamwork are relevant aspects. A specific focus on hematological particularities might be warranted to truly improve the collegial decision-making process in the context of hematology.

Barriers to cancer treatment and care for people experiencing structural vulnerability: a secondary analysis of ethnographic data

BACKGROUND

A key pillar of Canada's healthcare system is universal access, yet significant barriers to cancer services remain for people impacted by structural vulnerability (e.g., poverty, homelessness, racism). For this reason, cancer is diagnosed at a later stage, resulting in worse patient outcomes, a reduced quality of life, and at a higher cost to the healthcare system. Those who face significant barriers to access are under-represented in cancer control services Consequently, these inequities result in people dying from cancers that are highly treatable and preventable, however; little is known about their treatment and care course. The aim of this study was to explore barriers to accessing cancer treatment among people experiencing structural vulnerability within a Canadian context.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of ethnographic data informed by critical theoretical perspectives of equity and social justice. The original research draws from 30 months of repeated interviews (n = 147) and 300 h of observational fieldwork with people experiencing health and social inequities at the end-of-life, their support persons, and service providers.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified four themes presenting as 'modifiable' barriers to inequitable access to cancer treatment: (1) housing as a key determinant for cancer treatment (2) impact of lower health literacy (3) addressing social care needs is a pre-requisite for treatment (4) intersecting and compounding barriers reinforce exclusion from cancer care. These inter-related themes point to how people impacted by health and social inequities are at times 'dropped' out of the cancer system and therefore unable to access cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings make visible the contextual and structural factors contributing to inequitable access to cancer treatment within a publically funded healthcare system. Identifying people who experience structural vulnerability, and approaches to delivering cancer services that are explicitly equity-oriented are urgently needed.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care.

METHODS

In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization.

RESULTS

The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Assessing the implementation fidelity of HPV self-collection offered by community health workers during home visits (the EMA strategy): a case study in a low-middle-resource setting in Argentina

BACKGROUND

In Argentina, HPV  self-collection offered by community health workers was demonstrated to be effective to improve cervical cancer screening uptake. Based on these findings, the EMA strategy was scaled up in nine Argentinian provinces. However, there is no evidence about the degree of fidelity-in relation to the core components proposed by the National Program on Cervical Cancer Prevention-with which this strategy was implemented in the new jurisdictions. We carried out a fidelity evaluation of the EMA strategy scaling-up aimed at evaluating the level of adherence to the core components of the EMA strategy, and how different moderating factors affected the implementation fidelity.

METHODS

This descriptive study used a multi-method approach involving quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the implementation fidelity using the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity. Evaluation of the degree of adherence to the core components of the EMA strategy was carried out through the analysis of a self-administered survey of health promoters, observations, and secondary data from the National Screening Information System. The analysis of moderating factors was carried out through analysis of field notes, and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders.

RESULTS

Our results showed that the core components with highest fidelity were training, sample handling, and transportation. Regarding the offer of HPV self-collection, we found some adaptations such as locations in which health promoters offered HPV self-collection, and fewer pieces of information provided to women during the offer. In the follow-up and treatment core component, we found a reduced adherence to triage and colposcopy. Some contextual factors had a negative impact on implementation fidelity, such as urban insecurity and the reduction in the number of health promoters that offered HPV self-collection. Moderating factors that contributed to achieve high level of fidelity included a well-defined strategy with clear steps to follow, permanent feedback and high level of engagement among implementers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows how the analysis of fidelity and adaptations of HPV self-collection in real-world contexts are key to measure and maximize its effectiveness in low-middle-income settings.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Care and Health-Related Quality of Life of Non-Hispanic Black/African American, Hispanic/Latina and Non-Hispanic White Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in the U.S.: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol

The COVID-19 pandemic has had critical consequences for cancer care delivery, including altered treatment protocols and delayed services that may affect patients’ quality of life and long-term survival. Breast cancer patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups already experience worse outcomes, which may have been exacerbated by treatment delays and social determinants of health (SDoH). This protocol details a mixed-methods study aimed at comparing cancer care disruption among a diverse sample of women (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latina) and assessing how proximal, intermediate, and distal SDoH differentially contribute to care continuity and health-related quality of life. An embedded mixed-methods design will be implemented. Eligible participants will complete an online survey, followed by a semi-structured interview (with a subset of participants) to further understand factors that influence continuity of care, treatment decision-making, and self-reported engagement. The study will identify potentially modifiable factors to inform future models of care delivery and improve care transitions. These data will provide the necessary evidence to inform whether a subsequent, multilevel intervention is warranted to improve quality of care delivery in the COVID-19 aftermath. Additionally, results can be used to identify ways to leverage existing social resources to help manage and support patients’ outcomes.

Emerging digital technologies in cancer treatment, prevention, and control

The very first issue of the journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine (TBM) was dedicated, in part, to the theme of Health Information Technology as a platform for evidence implementation. The topic was timely: legislation in the USA was passed with the intent of stimulating the adoption of electronic health records; mobile smartphones, tablets, and other devices were gaining traction in the consumer market, while members within the Society of Behavioral Medicine were gaining scientific understanding on how to use these tools to effect healthy behavior change. For the anniversary issue of TBM, we evaluated the progress and problems associated with deploying digital health technologies to support cancer treatment, prevention, and control over the last decade. We conducted a narrative review of published literature to identify the role that emerging digital technologies may take in achieving national and international objectives in the decade to come. We tracked our evaluation of the literature across three phases in the cancer control continuum: (a) prevention, (b) early detection/screening, and (c) treatment/survivorship. From our targeted review and analyses, we noted that significant progress had been made in the adoption of digital health technologies in the cancer space over the past decade but that significant work remains to be done to integrate these technologies effectively into the cancer control systems needed to improve outcomes equitably across populations. The challenge for the next 10 years is inherently translational.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening across a Veterans Health Administration Hospital Network

Shared-decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by multiple organizations, reflecting a larger movement towards patient-centered care. Yet SDM for LCS does not routinely occur due to barriers at multiple levels. Moreover, how best to implement SDM into routine clinical practice remains unknown. There is a need for a novel approach to overcome multi-level barriers and ensure high-quality SDM for LCS is integrated into routine practice. We present the protocol for our US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) funded study. Our protocol is designed to implement and evaluate a multi-level, tailored approach to SDM for LCS in routine clinical practice within the VA New England Health Care Network, comprising eight medical centers. In this prospective, pragmatic hybrid implementation-effectiveness study, we will first conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to SDM for LCS at each level of the socioecological model, which will inform our tailored implementation plan. We will then sequentially introduce components of our tailored, multi-level approach to implementing SDM for LCS across VA New England. Finally, using mixed methods, we will evaluate the implementation and its impact on Effectiveness (primary outcome, defined as patient-centeredness of SDM), as well as implementation outcomes informed by the RE-AIM implementation science framework (i.e., Reach to patients, Adoption by providers, Implementation fidelity). Tailored implementation will address identified challenges to achieving policy recommendations for SDM for LCS in VA New England, inform nationwide implementation of SDM for LCS, and address stakeholder interests in promoting more patient-centered interactions across the VA.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions

IMPORTANCE

Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders.

RESULTS

Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Gap between desired and self-determined roles of general practitioners: a multicentre questionnaire study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians have diverse responsibilities. To collaborate with cancer specialists efficiently, they should prioritise roles desired by other collaborators rather than roles based on their own beliefs. No previous studies have reported the priority of roles such clinic-based general practitioners are expected to fulfil across the cancer care continuum. This study clarified the desired roles of clinic-based general practitioners to maximise person-centred cancer care.

METHODS

A web-based multicentre questionnaire in Japan was distributed to physicians in 2019. Physician roles within the cancer care continuum were divided into 12 categories, including prevention, diagnosis, surgery, follow-up with cancer survivors, chemotherapy, and palliative care. Responses were evaluated by the proportion of three high-priority items to determine the expected roles of clinic-based general practitioners according to responding physicians in similarly designated roles.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight departments (25% of those recruited) from 49 institutions returned questionnaires. Results revealed that some physicians had lower expectations for clinic-based general practitioners to diagnose cancer, and instead expected them to provide palliative care. However, some physicians expected clinic-based general practitioners to be involved in some treatment and survivorship care, though the clinic-based general practitioners did not report the same priority.

CONCLUSION

Clinic-based general practitioners prioritised involvement in prevention, diagnoses, and palliative care across the cancer continuum, although lower expectations were placed on them than they thought. Some additional expectations of their involvement in cancer treatment and survivorship care were unanticipated by them. These gaps represent issues that should be addressed.

Continuity of Cancer Care and Collaboration Between Family Physicians and Oncologists: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Collaboration between family physicians (FPs) and oncologists can be challenging. We present the results of a randomized clinical trial of an intervention designed to improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration, as perceived by patients with lung cancer and their FPs.

METHODS

The intervention included (1) supplying FPs with standardized summaries related to each patient, (2) recommending that patients see their FP after receiving the cancer diagnosis, (3) supplying the oncology team with patient information resulting from FP visits, and (4) providing patients with priority access to FPs as needed. A total of 206 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 104) or control group (n = 102), and 86.4% of involved FPs participated. Perceptions of continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration were assessed every 3 months for patients and at baseline and at the end of the study for FPs. Patient distress and health service utilization were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients and FPs in the intervention group perceived better interprofessional collaboration (patients: P <.0001; FPs: P = .0006) than those in the control group. Patients reported better informational continuity (P = .001) and management continuity (P = .05) compared to the control group, but no differences were found for FPs (information: P = .22; management: P = .13). No effect was found with regard to patient distress or health service utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention improved patient and FP perception of interprofessional collaboration, but its effectiveness on continuity of care was less clear for FPs than for patients. Additional strategies should be considered to sustainably improve continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration.

Adherence to triage among women with HPV-positive self-collection: a study in a middle-low income population in Argentina

Introduction

Screening for cervical cancer (CC) prevention has substantially changed with the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) tests. This technology compared to cytology has increased the detection of pre-malignant and malignant cervical lesions in real-world programmes in different settings. Very importantly, through self-collection, HPV testing can reduce barriers to screening and increase coverage. However, when using HPV self-collection, triage tests are a key step in the CC prevention process, and high adherence to triage has been difficult to obtain in low-middle income settings. The aim of this study was to measure adherence to triage among women with HPV+ self-collection and analysed factors associated with this adherence in a middle-low resource setting in Argentina. We also evaluated key indicators related to the implementation of the HPV self-collection strategy.

Methods

We analysed data on screening/triage/diagnosis/treatment from women aged 30+ who performed self-collection between 2015 and 2017 (n = 15,763), in the public health system in Tucuman, Argentina. We analysed secondary data from the national screening information system. The primary outcomes were: 1) adherence to cytology triage within the recommended timeframe (120 days) and 2) overall adherence to cytology triage including data at 18 months after screening. Multivariable regression was used to examine the association between age group, year of the screening test, record of the previous Pap-based screening and health insurance status with adherence to triage test as a primary outcome. We reported odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals and p-value of 0.05, which was considered the threshold for p-values).

Results

We analysed data of 2,389 HPV+ women. The overall adherence to triage at 18 months was 42.9%. The percentage of women completing cytology triage within the recommended timeframe of 120 days was lower (25.2%). Women with the record of a previous Pap-based screening had 1.86 times the odds of having a triage compared to women without a record of a previous Pap-based screening (95% CI: 1.64–2.64, p <0.001). Furthermore, the probability of having triage at the recommended timeframe was higher among women who were older and women with public health insurance.

Conclusions

Our results showed that adherence to triage in the recommended timeframe was low. In addition, the probability of having triage at the recommended timeframe was higher among women with a record of a previous Pap-based screening, a proxy of the use of health services. Our results showed that adherence to triage in the context of the HPV-self-collection strategy is challenging. The implementation of alternative approaches that might facilitate adherence to triage should be further investigated.

Primary care use after cancer treatment: an analysis of linked administrative data

Background

Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care.

Methods

We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits.

Results

The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%.

Conclusions

Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.

Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.

METHODS

We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.

RESULTS

The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.

Shared Care During Breast and Colorectal Cancer Treatment: Is It Associated With Patient-Reported Care Quality?

There is growing evidence that shared care, where the oncologist, primary care physician, and/or other specialty physicians jointly participate in care, can improve the quality of patients' cancer care. This cross-sectional study of breast and colorectal cancer patients (N = 534) recruited from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry examined patient and health system factors associated with receipt of shared care during cancer treatment into the early survivorship phase. We also assessed whether shared care was associated with quality indicators of cancer care: receipt of comprehensive care, follow-up care instructions, and written treatment summaries. Less than two-thirds of participants reported shared care during their cancer treatment. The odds of reporting shared care were 2.5 (95% CI: 1.46-4.17) times higher for colorectal than breast cancer patients and 52% (95% CI: 0.24-0.95) lower for uninsured compared with privately insured, after adjusting for other sociodemographic, clinical/tumor, and health system factors. No significant relationships were observed between shared care and quality indicators of cancer care. Given a substantial proportion of patients did not receive shared care, there may be missed opportunities for integrating primary care and nononcology specialists in cancer care, who can play critical roles in care coordination and managing comorbidities during cancer treatment.

Cross-sectoral video consultations in cancer care: perspectives of cancer patients, oncologists and general practitioners

Purpose

Multidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care.

Method

We used descriptive survey data from patients and doctors in the intervention group based on a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the user perspectives and fidelity of the intervention.

Results

Patients expressed that they were able to present their concerns in 95% of the consultations, and believed it was beneficial to have both their doctors present in 84%. The general practitioner and oncologist found that tripartite video consultation would lead to better coordination of care in almost 90% of the consultations. However, the benefits of handling social issues and comorbidity were sparser. Consultations were not accomplished in 11% due to technical problems and sound and video quality were non-satisfactory in 20%.

Conclusion

Overall, multidisciplinary video consultations between cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist were feasible in daily clinics. Initial barriers to address were technical issues and seamless planning. Patients reported high satisfaction, patient centredness and clarity of roles. General practitioners and oncologists were overall positive regarding role clarification and continuity, although less pronounced than patients.

Trial registration

www.clincialtrials.gov, NCT02716168.

Accuracy of Self-reported Colonic Polyps: Results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial Study of Colonoscopy Utilization

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy follow-up recommendations depend on the presence or absence of polyps, and if found, their number, size, and histology. Patients may be responsible for conveying results between primary and specialty care or providing medical information to family members; thus, accurate reporting is critical. This analysis assessed the accuracy of self-reported colonoscopy findings.

METHODS

3,986 participants from the Study of Colonoscopy Utilization, an ancillary study nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial, were included. Self-reports of polyp and adenoma were compared to medical records, and measures of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Correlates of accurate self-report of polyp were assessed using logistic regression and weighted to account for study sampling.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported polyp findings were 88% and 85%, respectively, and for adenoma 11% and 99%, respectively. Among participants with a polyp, older age was associated with lower likelihood while polyp severity and non-white race were associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among participants without a polyp, having multiple colonoscopies was associated with lower likelihood while family history of colorectal cancer was associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among both groups, longer time since colonoscopy was associated with lower likelihood of accurate recall.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants recalled with reasonable accuracy whether they had a prior polyp; however, recall of histology, specifically adenoma, was much less accurate.

IMPACT

Identification of strategies to increase accurate self-report of colonic polyps are needed, particularly for patient-provider communications and patient reporting of results to family members.

Multilevel analysis in rural cancer control: A conceptual framework and methodological implications

Rural populations experience a myriad of cancer disparities ranging from lower screening rates to higher cancer mortality rates. These disparities are due in part to individual-level characteristics like age and insurance status, but the physical and social context of rural residence also plays a role. Our objective was two-fold: 1) to develop a multilevel conceptual framework describing how rural residence and relevant micro, macro, and supra-macro factors can be considered in evaluating disparities across the cancer control continuum and 2) to outline the unique considerations of multilevel statistical modeling in rural cancer research. We drew upon several formative frameworks that address the cancer control continuum, population-level disparities, access to health care services, and social inequities. Micro-level factors comprised individual-level characteristics that either predispose or enable individuals to utilize health care services or that may affect their cancer risk. Macro-level factors included social context (e.g. domains of social inequity) and physical context (e.g. access to care). Rural-urban status was considered a macro-level construct spanning both social and physical context, as "rural" is often characterized by sociodemographic characteristics and distance to health care services. Supra-macro-level factors included policies and systems (e.g. public health policies) that may affect cancer disparities. Our conceptual framework can guide researchers in conceptualizing multilevel statistical models to evaluate the independent contributions of rural-urban status on cancer while accounting for important micro, macro, and supra-macro factors. Statistically, potential collinearity of multilevel model predictive variables, model structure, and spatial dependence should also be considered.

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment

Background

Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment.

Methods

Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10–12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive “immersion/crystallization” analysis process.

Results

Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond.

Conclusions

With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.

Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

PURPOSE

Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ²-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff (P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Holistic view of patients with melanoma of the skin: how can health systems create value and achieve better clinical outcomes?

Patients with skin cancer should be treated in healthcare units that ensure holistic and multidisciplinary approaches. Current healthcare units, especially those dedicated to cancer care, must evolve to integrated patient-centred systems.

The current review presents a holistic health services perspective towards managing patients with melanoma of the skin, based on a literature search. It includes a detailed discussion on how this could impact on the patient, his or her quality of life and on service providers.

Data from a multidisciplinary integrated practice unit, specialised in skin cancer, were also discussed, namely, for outcomes measurements, access to innovative treatments, value-based healthcare, patient centricity and use of integrated systems.

Epidemiology data, including disease determinants and risk factors, play an important role in defining measures, resources and management of these integrated cancer units. To optimise effective care and improve survival outcomes, integrated cancer clinics should comprise, in a patient-centred way, innovative treatments and technologies, along with continuous training and creation of multidisciplinary units of healthcare professionals.

Measurement of outcomes, such as clinical, quality of life and cost, is decisive in determining affordability and access to the best available state-of-the-art care. Besides, treatment of melanoma has significantly improved over recent years, but with increasing costs, which brings a challenging mission to guarantee access to treatment and quality care. Value-based healthcare allows the achievement of better health outcomes and higher quality services while reducing the costs associated with the full-care cycle.

Therefore, current healthcare systems should develop in line with health institutions’ organisation and culture, increasing adherence to best practices and create value.

A Cancer Patient Journey: Complete Review During Acute Treatment Phase

Purpose: Cancer is a chronic illness with acute episodes lasting for years. Most cancer patients have coexisting comorbidities, which affect cancer treatment outcomes and make a shared care model for chronic diseases essential. There is a considerable gap between the achievable and delivered quality of care for cancer patients.

Methods: We used a case study approach to examine the complexity of cancer management, from the perspective of one person's case as interpreted by the care team. It allowed the complexity of cancer management to retain its holistic and meaningful characteristics. We interviewed the patient, caregiver, primary care physician (PCP), and oncologist. Interviews were audio recorded and analyzed with ATLASti, qualitative statistical software. Participants also completed a basic demographic survey. Common themes were identified, analyzed, and discussed.

Results: Main themes were lack of longitudinal relationship with PCP, communication barriers, and ambiguous health care provider roles. Communication barriers can be associated with the other two main themes.

Conclusion: Our results showed that shared care for cancer management is lacking during the acute cancer treatment phase. Communication barriers between the PCP and oncologist along with lack of continuity of care and unclear role of the PCP are major contributors for fragmented cancer care in U.S. health care system.

The ecology of multilevel intervention research

Behavior change research to promote health and prevent disease increasingly relies on a complex set of interacting characteristics across levels of influence such as biological, psychological, behavioral, interpersonal, and environmental. How to best develop health-related interventions that incorporate the individual, the macro-environment, and their interactions remains a challenge. This article considers a set of key dimensions that constitute what we refer to as the ecology of research across a broad context of multilevel research (MLR), spanning fundamental multilevel research (FMLR), multilevel intervention research (MLIR), and multilevel implementation science (MIS). With the goal of promoting improvements in MLIR, we describe the inherent interdependencies among aspects of research and consider how the growth and development of evidence and resources influence the cross-talk among researchers from different perspectives (e.g., disciplines and domains). We propose a framework that highlights opportunities to reduce barriers and address gaps in areas critical to generating an evidence base through MLR, MLIR, and MIS. Overall, we aim to support strategic decisions that can accelerate our understanding of ML health outcomes and interactions among factors within and across levels, with the goal of strengthening the effectiveness of ML interventions across health-related outcomes.

Evaluation of a survivorship needs assessment planning tool for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to test the acceptability and feasibility of a survivorship needs assessment planning (SNAP) tool for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors and caregivers, evaluate short-term changes in psychosocial outcomes after completing the SNAP session, and develop strategies for system refinement.

METHODS

We used a prospective one-group design and mixed methods with HNC survivors and caregivers (N = 25 dyads). Participants completed baseline and 6-week surveys before and after completing a SNAP clinic visit to assess psychosocial outcomes and acceptability. Intervention sessions included tablet-based needs assessments driving tailored care plans. Dyads' open-ended feedback and clinician interviews (N = 12) evaluated acceptability and feasibility.

RESULTS

SNAP data collection time burden and technology challenges were minimal, and care plans included messages (M = 19), educational materials (M = 13), and referrals (M = 4.5; 86% behavioral medicine, 77% nutrition, 65% physical therapy). Participants reported high satisfaction with the session and care plan, highlighting the key strengths of pulling complex medical information together and the focus on caregiver well-being, with multiple suggestions to facilitate clinic workflow. Depression and unmet needs decreased and survivorship knowledge increased significantly in survivors and caregivers (p < .05) over the 6-week period.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNAP tool is an innovative technology-based survivor-centered strategy to assess and manage needs in HNC survivors and caregivers. Results support its acceptability and ability to address dyads' needs; the tool merits further testing in a clinical trial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Technology-enabled care planning may be a productive way to assess and address HNC dyads' dynamic needs after treatment.

An ecological perspective on implementing environmental control units for veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders

Purpose: Guided by an ecological perspective, the purpose of this study was to identify multilevel factors that influenced the implementation of environmental control units (ECUs) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Spinal Cord Injury/Disorders (SCI/D) Centres.Materials and methods: Mixed methods including an online survey and qualitative interviews of VHA healthcare employees.Results: VHA healthcare employees participated in the online survey (n = 153, 21% participation rate) and semi-structured interview (n = 28; 54% participation rate). About 58.2% of survey respondents indicated that patients admitted to a VHA SCI/D Centre received ECU training. Interview participants reported that patients might benefit from educational materials on using ECUs. About 53.7% of survey respondents indicated that they did not receive ECU training. Interview participants emphasized that more healthcare employees needed to be trained to distribute ECU-related tasks including patient training and troubleshooting problems. The most common challenge was the coordination involved in moving patients out of rooms that were being outfitted with an ECU.Conclusions: Application of an ecological framework highlighted a range of factors at multiple levels that dynamically influence ECU implementation while accounting for the SCI/D care context. Integrating this technology with the care experiences of patients, the workflow of healthcare employees, and the structure of the organization may improve the implementation of ECUs.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAn environmental control unit (ECU) is an assistive technology device that provides persons with a physical disability (e.g., spinal cord injuries and disorders) increased independence in a home, hospital, or rehabilitation facility setting.An ECU allows a person to access and control appliances like their hospital bed, lights, television, doors, nurse call button, telephone, and computer, thus, decreasing workload on attendants and family members while increasing independence for the user.Application of an ecological framework in this study highlighted a range of factors at multiple levels that dynamically influence ECU implementation while accounting for the SCI/D care context.Integrating this technology with the care experiences of patients, the workflow of healthcare employees, and the structure of the organization may improve the implementation of ECUs in an inpatient setting.

The Effectiveness of Shared Care in Cancer Survivors-A Systematic Review

Objectives

To determine whether the shared care model during the follow-up of cancer survivors is effective in terms of patient-reported outcomes, clinical outcomes, and continuity of care.

Methods

Using systematic review methods, studies were searched from six electronic databases-MEDLINE (n = 474), British Nursing Index (n = 320), CINAHL (n = 437), Cochrane Library (n = 370), HMIC (n = 77), and Social Care Online (n = 210). The review considered all health-related outcomes that evaluated the effectiveness of shared care for cancer survivors.

Results

Eight randomised controlled trials and three descriptive papers were identified. The results showed the likelihood of similar effectiveness between shared care and usual care in terms of quality of life, mental health outcomes, unmet needs, and clinical outcomes in cancer survivorship. The reviewed studies indicated that shared care overall is highly acceptable to cancer survivors and primary care practitioners, and shared care might be cheaper than usual care.

Conclusions

The results from this review suggest that the patient satisfaction of shared care is higher than usual care, and the effectiveness of shared care is similar to usual care in cancer survivorship. Interventions that formally involve primary care and improve the communication between primary care and hospital care could support the PCPs in the follow-up.

A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework

The general paradigms that exist to guide measures in quality of care do not sufficiently deal with the changing needs of cancer management. The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the quality of cancer care and develop a conceptual framework relevant to current practice. A textual narrative review of the literature was conducted by searching electronic databases from the last 10 years. Articles were then screened and included if they were both relevant to the management of cancer and standards in quality of care. Thematic analysis of the included articles was performed. Eighty-three articles were included and 12 domains identified and integrated with current models to develop a conceptual framework. These included: healthcare delivery system; timeliness; access; appropriateness of care; multidisciplinary and coordinated care; patient experience; technical aspects; safety; patient-centred outcomes; disease-specific outcomes; innovation and improvement and value. We propose a conceptual framework for the quality of cancer care based on relevant and current oncology practice. This presents a more practical and comprehensive approach than general models, and can be used by healthcare providers, managers and policy makers to guide and identify the need for metrics for quality improvements.

New Directions in Cancer Control and Population Sciences

Cancer control science has been evolving since it first became a focus for cancer research and program activities a century ago. The evolution of the field has responded to historical megatrends along the way that keep it relevant to the cancer-related needs of society. This commentary describes some of the key trends and developments now influencing cancer control and population sciences that reflect societal change and new tools and concepts in modern biomedical science. New directions include the impact of climate change, health care delivery research, the growth of population health science, data science, precision medicine, data sharing, implementation science, and new technologies, including social media and new geospatial methodologies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1165-9. ©2017 AACR.

Evidence-based recommendations on care for breast cancer survivors for primary care providers: a review of evidence-based breast cancer guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence-based (EB) recommendations on survivorship care for primary care providers (PCPs) in EB breast cancer guidelines.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Guidelines were collected via experts and via literature database, guideline database and cancer agency websites searches.

METHOD

EB guidelines in any language published between 2012 and 2017 were collected. EB recommendations on survivorship care relevant for PCPs were extracted and grouped into three categories (recurrence detection, long-term effects and recurrence prevention). The content of the recommendations was analysed and summarised in the number and type of clinical topics addressed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the guidelines.

RESULTS

Six guidelines, of which two were of acceptable methodological quality, were included. One was specifically made for general practitioners. Fifteen clinical topics were identified. Guidelines differed in the clinical topics addressed and for some identical topics in the content of the recommendations. Many recommendations were based on low-quality evidence. Recurrence detection received most attention, physical examination and mammography were often highlighted. Potential complications largely varied in number and type. Intimacy concerns, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, fatigue, menopausal symptoms, peripheral neuropathy and lymphedema were reported in more than one guideline. Recurrence prevention was mentioned in four guidelines; all recommended physical activity.

CONCLUSION

The number of EB recommendations in guidelines is limited. Moreover, recommendations differ between guidelines and most are based on low-quality evidence. More high-quality research is needed to develop and adapt guidelines to support PCPs in providing optimal breast cancer survivorship care.

Oncologists' views on the importance of general practitioners for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

Integrated cancer care requires cooperation between specialists and general practitioners (GPs). Mutual understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities is essential if cooperation is to be successful. While GPs' opinions about oncologists have been addressed in previous studies, less is known about oncologists' views on the role of GPs' in cancer care, especially with regard to GPs' patient-centred, communication-based tasks.

OBJECTIVE

To assess oncologists' views on the importance of GPs for cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted 15 qualitative guideline-based telephone interviews with oncologists using open-ended questions and analysed these interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Oncologists situated GPs as persons of trust for patients in a rather amicable sphere of caring in contrast to themselves who were situated in a rather biomedical sphere of evidence-based treatment decisions. Oncologists' appraisal of an overlapping of these spheres varied: While most stressed opportunities for patients (and themselves), others also mentioned risks.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that oncologists clearly distinguish between their own sphere of evidence-based treatment decision-making and GPs' sphere of psychosocial caring. The question remains how these roles get interconnected in real life situations in order to meet patients' needs adequately. So far it seems that it is often the patient who is travelling between both spheres and needs to initiate interconnection to get comprehensive cancer care.

Provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adjuvant endocrine therapy-related symptom management

PURPOSE

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) utilization is linked to improved clinical outcomes among breast cancer survivors (BCS); yet, AET adherence rates remain suboptimal. Little is known about provider perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to AET-related symptom management (SM). In this study, we examined provider perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM among BCS and opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

We conducted three focus groups (FGs) with a multidisciplinary group of healthcare providers (n = 13) experienced in caring for BCS undergoing AET. We utilized semi-structured discussion guides to elicit provider perspectives on AET-related SM. FGs were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative software to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Providers described patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to AET-related SM. At the patient-level, barriers included competing demands, limited time/resources, and possible misattribution of some symptoms to AET, while family/social relationships and insurance emerged as important facilitators. Discomfort with SM, limited time, and challenges distinguishing AET-related symptoms from other conditions were key provider-level barriers. Provider-level facilitators included routine symptom documentation and strong provider relationships. Care fragmentation and complexity of the cancer care delivery system were described as system-level barriers; however, survivor clinics were endorsed by providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider perspectives on AET-related SM can shed light on SM barriers and facilitators spanning multiple levels of the cancer care delivery system. Strategies for improving AET-related SM in BCS include increasing patients' knowledge and engagement in SM, equipping providers with efficient SM strategies, and improving coordination of symptom-related services through survivorship programs.

Defining cancer survivors, their needs, and perspectives on survivorship health care in the USA

More people are living after a diagnosis of cancer than ever before and now account for around 5% of the US population. The specialty of cancer survivorship has been developing and growing since the mid-1980s, but the term survivor is open to debate by people living with cancer and those caring for them. Regardless of the term used, many ongoing physical, psychological, and social needs affect quality of life for people who are living with cancer and those who have survived the disease. Survivors prefer to have these needs addressed by their oncologist but also want their primary care provider to have a role. However, survivors also believe there are communication and coordination barriers between care providers. The existing method for delivering cancer care is becoming unsustainable and is not adequately configured to deliver high-quality cancer care to this growing population in the USA, especially when confronted with projected health-care shortages by 2020. In this Series paper, we define the term cancer survivor, discuss survivors' ongoing needs and preferences for care over time, and consider the implications for delivering coordinated cancer care in the USA.

An Expanded Theoretical Framework of Care Coordination Across Transitions in Care Settings

For many patients, high-quality, patient-centered, and cost-effective health care requires coordination among multiple clinicians and settings. Ensuring optimal care coordination requires a clear understanding of how clinician activities and continuity during transitions affect patient-centeredness and quality outcomes. This article describes an expanded theoretical framework to better understand care coordination. The framework provides clear articulation of concepts. Examples are provided of ways to measure the concepts.

The two solitudes of primary care and cancer specialist care: is there a bridge?

In Canadian Cancer Statistics, the Canadian Cancer Society recently reported a projected increase in cancer incidence of 40% by 2030. [...]

Review of guidance on recurrence risk management for general practitioners in breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma guidelines

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) will face cancer recurrences more frequently due to the rising number of cancer survivors and greater involvement of GPs in the follow-up care. Currently, GPs are uncertain about managing recurrence risks and may need more guidance.

OBJECTIVE

To explore what guidance is available for GPs on managing recurrence risks for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, and to examine whether recurrence risk management differs between these tumour types.

METHODS

Breast cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma clinical practice guidelines were identified via searches on internet and the literature, and experts were approached to identify guidelines. Guidance on recurrence risk management that was (potentially) relevant for GPs was extracted and summarized into topics.

RESULTS

We included 24 breast cancer, 21 colorectal cancer and 15 melanoma guidelines. Identified topics on recurrence risk management were rather similar among the three tumour types. The main issue in the guidelines was recurrence detection through consecutive diagnostic testing. Guidelines agree on both routine and nonroutine tests, but, recommended frequencies for follow-up are inconsistent, except for mammography screening for breast cancer. Only six guidelines provided targeted guidance for GPs.

CONCLUSION

This inventory shows that recurrence risk management has overlapping areas between tumour types, making it more feasible for GPs to provide this care. However, few guidance on recurrence risk management is specific for GPs. Recommendations on time intervals of consecutive diagnostic tests are inconsistent, making it difficult for GPs to manage recurrence risks and illustrating the need for more guidance targeted for GPs.

Physician cooperation in outpatient cancer care. An amplified secondary analysis of qualitative interview data

The importance of outpatient cancer care services is increasing due to the growing number of patients having or having had cancer. However, little is known about cooperation among physicians in outpatient settings. To understand what inter- and multidisciplinary care means in community settings, we conducted an amplified secondary analysis that combined qualitative interview data with 42 general practitioners (GPs), 21 oncologists and 21 urologists that mainly worked in medical practices in Germany. We compared their perspectives on cooperation relationships in cancer care. Our results indicate that all participants regarded cooperation as a prerequisite for good cancer care. Oncologists and urologists mainly reported cooperating for tumour-specific treatment tasks, while GPs' reasoning for cooperation was more patient-centred. While oncologists and urologists reported experiencing reciprocal communication with other physicians, GPs had to gather the information they needed. GPs seldom reported engaging in formal cooperation structures, while for specialists, participation in formal spaces of cooperation, such as tumour boards, facilitated a more frequent and informal discussion of patients, for instance on the phone. Further research should focus on ways to foster GPs' integration in cancer care and evaluate if this can be reached by incorporating GPs in formal cooperation structures such as tumour boards.

Surgeon-, pathologist-, and hospital-level variation in suboptimal lymph node examination after colectomy: Compartmentalizing quality improvement strategies

BACKGROUND

The goals of this study were to characterize the variation in suboptimal lymph node examination for patients with colon cancer across individual surgeons, pathologists, and hospitals and to examine if this variation affects 5-year, disease-specific survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by merging the New York State Cancer Registry with the Statewide Planning & Research Cooperative System, Medicaid, and Medicare claims to identify resections for stages I-III colon cancer from 2004-2011. Multilevel logistic regression models characterized variation in suboptimal lymph node examination (<12 lymph nodes). Multilevel competing-risks Cox models were used for survival analyses.

RESULTS

The overall rate of suboptimal lymph node examination was 32% in 12,332 patients treated by 1,503 surgeons and 814 pathologists at 187 hospitals. Patient-level predictors of suboptimal lymph node examination were older age, male sex, nonscheduled admission, lesser stage, and left colectomy procedure. Hospital-level predictors of suboptimal lymph node examination were a nonacademic status, a rural setting, and a low annual number of resections for colon cancer. The percent of the total clustering variance attributed to surgeons, pathologists, and hospitals was 8%, 23%, and 70%, respectively. Increasing the pathologist and hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymph node examination were associated with worse 5-year, disease-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

There was a large variation in suboptimal lymph node examination between surgeons, pathologists, and hospitals. Collaborative efforts that promote optimal examination of lymph nodes may improve prognosis for colon cancer patients. Given that 93% of the variation was attributable to pathologists and hospitals, endeavors in quality improvement should focus on these 2 settings.

Reducing Cancer Burden in the Population: An Overview of Epidemiologic Evidence to Support Policies, Systems, and Environmental Changes

"Reducing Cancer Burden in the Population: Epidemiologic Evidence to Support Policies, Systems, and Environmental Changes" is a compilation of 11 reviews addressing aspects of primary prevention of cancer (early life factors, vitamin D, and periodontal disease and the oral microbiome); primary and secondary prevention (in the transgender population); surveillance following secondary prevention (personalizing follow-up of patients diagnosed with an adenoma based on colorectal cancer risk); tertiary prevention (physical activity as an adjuvant to cancer treatment, measurement of patient-reported physical functioning in cancer treatment trials, and implementation of palliative care recommendations); and all 3 (changing epidemiology of oral cancers). Authors discuss policies, systems, and environment (PSE) changes that may be supported by epidemiologic evidence, for example, how existing public health and clinical policies and guidelines targeting noncancer outcomes may indirectly reduce cancer burden and how some cancer control policies could be refined to enhance effectiveness. Authors also discuss where systems and environment changes are necessary to ensure routine implementation of up-to-date, evidence-based policies and guidelines. Two other articles discuss infrastructure to support identification of existing and emerging cancer problems that could be reduced or avoided, including by PSE changes. These frameworks may guide impactful cancer research relevant to cancer centers' catchment areas, as well as cancer control efforts in countries where noncommunicable diseases including cancer are on the rise. The weight of the evidence of these reviews supports opportunities for PSE changes and infrastructure that could reduce the cancer burden in populations.

Web based survivorship interventions for women with breast cancer: An integrative review

PURPOSE

Breast cancer survivors' experience a range of negative sequelae post-treatment including depression, anxiety, physical side effects from treatment, sexuality concerns and decreased quality of life. Survivorship care is recommended by the IOM to meet the post treatment needs of survivors but implementation is variable and barriers to delivery such as time and resource restraints have been identified. Web-based interventions may be a way to overcome some barriers to providing quality survivorship care that is efficacious, cost efficient and convenient. The purpose of this integrative review is to summarize and synthesize the current research on web-based interventions for breast cancer survivorship care and evaluate the data to determine potential implications for practice.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to guide this integrative review. Key search terms included breast cancer, survivor, intervention, web, internet and technology. Articles evaluating web-based survivorship interventions (n = 405) for early stage breast cancer patients who completed active therapy were included.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria: six randomized controlled trials, six survey based studies, one qualitative study, one retrospective chart review and one mixed methods study. Studies evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy provided the strongest data. Other studies evaluated exercise and lifestyle interventions, symptom management programs and pilot/exploratory work. Findings suggest that web-based survivorship interventions are feasible and acceptable to breast cancer survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Web-based survivorship interventions have the potential to meet the needs of breast cancer survivors while possibly overcoming some of the documented barriers to survivorship care implementation.

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

Documenting coordination of cancer care between primary care providers and oncology specialists in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To report on the findings of the CanIMPACT (Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum) Casebook project, which systematically documented Canadian initiatives (ie, programs and projects) designed to improve or support coordination and continuity of cancer care between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology specialists.

DESIGN

Pan-Canadian environmental scan.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals representing the various initiatives provided data for the analysis.

METHODS

Initiatives included in the Casebook met the following criteria: they supported coordination and collaboration between PCPs and oncology specialists; they were related to diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, or personalized medicine; and they included breast or colorectal cancer or both. Data were collected on forms that were compiled into summaries (ie, profiles) for each initiative. Casebook initiatives were organized based on the targeted stage of the cancer care continuum, jurisdiction, and strategy (ie, model of care or type of intervention) employed. Thematic analysis identified similarities and differences among employed strategies, the level of primary care engagement, implementation barriers and facilitators, and initiative evaluation.

MAIN FINDINGS

The CanIMPACT Casebook profiles 24 initiatives. Eleven initiatives targeted the survivorship stage of the cancer care continuum and 15 focused specifically on breast or colorectal cancer or both. Initiative teams implemented the following strategies: nurse patient navigation, multidisciplinary care teams, electronic communication or information systems, PCP education, and multicomponent initiatives. Initiatives engaged PCPs at various levels. Implementation barriers included lack of care standardization across jurisdictions and incompatibility among electronic communication systems. Implementation facilitators included having clinical and program leaders publicly support the initiative, repurposing existing resources, receiving financial support, and establishing a motivated and skilled project or program team. The lack of evaluative data made it difficult to identify the most effective interventions or models of care.

CONCLUSION

The CanIMPACT Casebook documents Canadian efforts to improve or support the coordination of cancer care by PCPs and oncology specialists as a means to improve patient outcomes and cancer system performance.

Interventions to improve care coordination between primary healthcare and oncology care providers: a systematic review

Coordination of patient care between primary care and oncology care providers is vital to care quality and outcomes across the cancer continuum, yet it is known to be challenging. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate current or new models of care and/or interventions aimed at improving coordination between primary care and oncology care providers for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were searched for existing English language studies published between January 2000 and 15 May 2015. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were included if they evaluated a specific model/intervention that was designed to improve care coordination between primary care and oncology care providers, for any stage of the cancer continuum, for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Twenty-two studies (5 systematic reviews, 6 RCTs and 11 non-randomised studies) were included and varied with respect to the targeted phase of the cancer continuum, type of model or intervention tested, and outcome measures. The majority of studies showed no statistically significant changes in any patient, provider or system outcomes. Owing to conceptual and methodological limitations in this field, the review is unable to provide specific conclusions about the most effective or preferred model/intervention to improve care coordination. Imprecise results that lack generalisability and definitiveness provide limited evidence to base the development of future interventions and policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015025006.

Fall-risk prediction in older adults with cancer: an unmet need

Falls in older adults with cancer are more common than in noncancer controls, yet no fall-risk screening tool has been validated in this population. We undertook a cross-sectional pilot study of the Falls Risk Questionnaire (FRQ) in 21 adults aged ≥65 receiving systemic cancer therapy. Participants completed the FRQ, geriatric assessment measures, and a measure of fear-of-falling. The recruitment rate was 87.5 %, with 95.2 % completion of the FRQ and additional geriatric assessment and quality of life measures. The FRQ correlated significantly with the Timed Up and Go test (Pearson r 0.479, p = 0.028). In addition, the FRQ score correlated directly with fear-of-falling and inversely with QOL, particularly physical health and neurotoxicity subscales. In conclusion, the FRQ was feasible in older adults receiving cancer therapy and correlates with measures of physical performance, functional status, and fear-of-falling. The FRQ may prove to be a valuable fall-risk screening tool to implement fall-prevention interventions in this vulnerable population of older adults with cancer.

Initial experience of an algorithm-based protocol for the community follow-up of men with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the implementation of a novel algorithm-based discharge programme for the community follow-up of men with prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with prostate cancer considered suitable for discharge were identified from consultant-led and clinical nurse-specialist telephone clinics at Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Patients were discharged on to one of four discharge pathways: watchful waiting, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), post-prostatectomy, and post-radiotherapy. Primary care providers were asked to adhere to specific surveillance measures and refer patients back to secondary care after breach of pre-defined prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level threshold criteria. Reasons for non-compliance, re-referral, and cause of death were determined for all discharged men.

RESULTS

In all, 573 men were discharged across all four pathways; 169 on the watchful-waiting pathway, 229 on the ADT pathway, 95 on the post-prostatectomy pathway, and 80 on the post-radiotherapy pathway. All patients had ≥12 months of follow-up. In all, 48 of 54 (88.9%) men were re-referred promptly after a PSA-threshold breach. Of the remaining six patients there were three refusals, one unrelated death before referral, and two late referrals at 4 months. Three patients were lost to follow-up due to database non-registration and were subsequently recalled, none of whom had a PSA-threshold breach. There were three unexpected deaths attributed to prostate cancer: two were community deaths with no biochemical or clinical evidence of prostate cancer progression, while one was due to a likely progressive PSA non-secreting tumour.

CONCLUSION

Initial results suggest the algorithm-based protocol is a viable, effective, and oncologically safe method for the controlled discharge of men from secondary to primary care. Longer-term follow-up, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness data are required to assess the true impact of the initiative.

Cardiovascular Toxicity and Management of Targeted Cancer Therapy

The advent of effective oral, molecular-targeted drugs in oncology has changed many incurable malignancies such as chronic myeloid leukemia into chronic diseases similar to coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus. Oral agents including monoclonal antibodies, kinase inhibitors and hormone receptor blockers offer patients with cancer incremental improvements in both overall survival and quality of life. As it is imperative to recognize and manage side effects of platelet inhibitors, beta blockers, statins, human immunodeficiency virus drugs and fluoroquinolones by all healthcare providers, the same holds true for these newer targeted therapies; patients may present to their generalist or other subspecialist with drug-related symptoms. Cardiovascular adverse events are among the most frequent, and potentially serious, health issues in outpatient clinics, and among the most frequent side effects of targeted chemotherapy. Data support improved patient outcomes and satisfaction when primary care and other providers are cognizant of chemotherapy side effects, allowing for earlier intervention and reduction in morbidity and healthcare costs. With the implementation of accountable care and pay for performance, improved communication between generalists and subspecialists is essential to deliver cost-effective patient care.