Evaluation of a cancer patient navigation program ("Onkolotse") in terms of hospitalization rates, resource use and healthcare costs: rationale and design of a randomized, controlled study

Patient experiences and needs in cancer care- results from a nationwide cross-sectional study in Germany

BACKGROUND

Patient-centredness has become a central quality indicator for oncology care. Elements include shared decision-making, patient navigation and integration of psychosocial care, which impact patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Despite efforts to promote patient-centred care in Germany in recent decades, implementation remains fragmented. Further, research on patient experiences with cancer care and its determinants is limited. Therefore, this study examines which patient- and facility-specific factors are associated with patient-centred quality care delivery.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,121 cancer patients in acute treatment, rehabilitation, and aftercare for different cancer entities across Germany. A participatory developed questionnaire was used. Outcome measures were the quality of physician-patient interaction and provision of psychosocial care during acute care. Predictors comprised patient-specific characteristics and treatment facility-specific factors. Multiple linear regression and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed. In addition, a content analysis of open-ended comments on the patients' overall cancer care needs was applied.

RESULTS

Multiple linear regression analysis showed recent diagnosis (β=-0.12, p = < 0.001), being male (β=-0.11, p = 0.003), and having a preference for passive decision-making (β=-0.10, p = 0.001) to be significantly associated with higher interaction quality, but not age, education and health insurance type. An overall low impact of patient characteristics on interaction quality was revealed (adj. R2 = 0.03). Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated the availability of central contact persons (OR = 3.10, p < 0.001) followed by recent diagnosis (p < 0.001), having breast cancer (p < 0.001) and being female (OR = 1.68, p < 0.05) to significantly predict offering psycho-oncological counselling to patients in acute care facilities. The availability of peer support visiting services (OR = 7.17, p < 0.001) and central contact persons (OR = 1.87, p < 0.001) in the care facility, breast cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001) and a higher level of education (p < 0.05) significantly increased the odds of patients receiving information about peer support in the treatment facility. Despite relatively satisfactory quality of physician-patient interactions in cancer care (M = 3.5 (± 1.1)), many patients expressed that better patient-centred communication and coordinated, comprehensive cancer care are needed.

CONCLUSION

The findings reflect effective developments and improvements in cancer care and suggest that patients' social characteristics are less decisive for delivering patient-centred quality care than systemic factors surrounding the care facilities. They can serve to inform oncology care in Germany.

The effect of pain-education nursing based on a mind map on postoperative pain score and quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer

Mind mapping is a combination of images and logical thinking in the form of pictures and texts. It presents a natural expression process that conforms to the divergent thinking of the brain, helping patients understand memory. This study aimed to investigate the impact of pain-education nursing with the aid of mind maps on postoperative pain scores and quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. The medical records of 100 colorectal cancer patients treated from July 2020 to July 2022 were selected as retrospective research participants and divided into control and observation groups. The control group received routine pain care, and the observation group was given pain-education nursing based on a mind map. The effects on quality of life, pain, negative emotions, and comfort after nursing were compared between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in quality of-life scores between the 2 groups before the nursing intervention (P > .05). After nursing, the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social functions of patients in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group. However, the overall quality of life and financial difficulties of patients in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). The observation group's social, physical, and psychological comfort scores were significantly higher than those in the control group after nursing intervention (P < .05). After nursing, the observation group's visual analog scale scores at different times after the operation were significantly lower than those of the control group. The scores on the self-rating anxiety scale and self-rating depression scale in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). Pain-education nursing based on mind maps can effectively improve the daily living ability, pain symptoms, and quality of life of patients after colorectal cancer, and there is a reference value for post-nursing care of patients after colorectal cancer.

Associations among navigational support and health care utilization and costs in patients with advanced cancer: An analysis based on administrative health insurance data

BACKGROUND

Fragmented and complex healthcare systems make it difficult to provide continuity of care for patients with advanced cancer near the end of life. Nurse-based cross-sectoral navigation support has the potential to increase patients' quality of life. The objective of this paper was to evaluate associations between navigation support and health care utilization, and the associated costs of care.

METHODS

The evaluation is based on claims data from 37 statutory health insurance funds. Non-randomized recruitment of the intervention group (IG) took place between 2018 and 2019 in four German hospitals. The comparison group (CG) was defined ex post. It comprises nonparticipating clients of the involved health insurance funds matched on age, gender, and diagnosis in a 1:4 ratio to the IG. Healthcare resource utilization was compared using incident rate ratios (IRRs) based on negative binomial regression models. Linear mixed models were performed to compare differences in lengths of hospital stays and costs between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 717 patients were included (IG: 149, CG: 568). IG patients showed shorter average lengths of hospital stays (IG: 11 days [95% CI: 10, 13] vs. CG: 15 days [95% CI: 14, 16], p < 0.001). In the IG, 21% fewer medications were prescribed and there were on average 15% fewer outpatient doctor contacts per month. Average billed costs in the IG were 23% lower than in the CG (IG: 6754 EUR [95% CI: 5702, 8000] vs. CG: 8816 EUR [95% CI: 8153, 9533], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was associated with decreased costs mainly as a result of a non-intended navigation effect. The social care nurses had navigated patients within the hospital early, needs-oriented and effectively but interpreted their function less cross-sectorally. Linkage of hospital-based navigators with the outpatient care sector needs further exploration.

Development of a patient-oriented navigation model for patients with lung cancer and stroke in Germany

Background

The concept of patient navigation was first established in the USA to support vulnerable patient groups in receiving timely and comprehensive access to cancer care. It has recently gained increasing interest in Germany to support patients with chronic diseases in a fragmented healthcare system. The aim of this paper is to present the development of such a model adapted to the German context based on the results of mixed-methods studies investigating the need for and barriers to patient-oriented care.

Methods

In a process adapted from Delphi rounds, we conducted regular structured workshops with investigators of the project to discuss results of their studies and identify content and structure of the model based on the data. Workshop discussions were structured along seven core components of a navigation model including target patient groups, navigator tasks, occupational background and education of navigators, and patient-navigator interaction mode.

Results

Using an approach based on empirical data of current care practices with special focus on patients’ perspectives, we developed a patient-oriented navigation model for patients who have experienced stroke and lung cancer in the German healthcare context. Patients without personal social support were viewed as struggling most with the healthcare system, as well as multimorbid and elderly patients. Navigators should serve as a longer-term contact person with a flexible contact mode and timing based on the individual situation and preferences of patients. Navigator tasks include the provision of administrative and organizational support as well as referral and guidance to available resources and beneficial health programs with special forms of knowledge. Implementation of the navigator should be flexibly located to ensure a reliable outreach to vulnerable patients for first contact in settings like specialized in-patient and out-patient settings, while navigation itself focuses on care coordination in the out-patient setting.

Conclusion

Flexibility of navigator tasks needed to be a core characteristic of a navigation model to be perceived as supportive from patients’ perspectives. In a subsequent feasibility study, an intervention based on the model will be evaluated according to its acceptance, demand, and practicality.

Identifying and handling unbalanced baseline characteristics in a non-randomized, controlled, multicenter social care nurse intervention study for patients in advanced stages of cancer

Purpose

Given the psychosocial burdens patients in advanced stages of cancer face, innovative care concepts are needed. At the same time, such vulnerable patient groups are difficult to reach for participation in intervention studies and randomized patient inclusion may not be feasible. This article aims to identify systematic biases respectively selection effects occurring during the recruitment phase and to discuss their potential causes based on a non-randomized, multicenter intervention study with patients in advanced stages of cancer.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with at least one of 16 predefined cancers were recruited at four hospitals in three German cities. The effect of social care nurses’ continuous involvement in acute oncology wards was measured by health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), information and participation preferences, decisional conflicts, doctor-patient communication, health literacy and symptom perception. Absolute standardized mean difference was calculated as a standardized effect size to test baseline characteristics balance between the intervention and control groups.

Results

The study enrolled 362 patients, 150 in the intervention and 212 in the control group. Except for gender, both groups differed in relevant socio-demographic characteristics, e.g. regarding age and educational background. With respect to the distribution of diagnoses, the intervention group showed a higher symptom burden than the control group. Moreover, the control group reported better quality of life at baseline compared to the intervention group (52.6 points (SD 21.7); 47.8 points (SD 22.0), ASMD = 0.218, p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Overall, the intervention group showed more social and health vulnerability than the control group. Among other factors, the wide range of diagnoses included and structural variation between the recruiting clinics increased the risk for bias. We recommend a close, continuous monitoring of relevant social and health-related characteristics during the recruitment phase as well as the use of appropriate statistical analysis strategies for adjustment, such as propensity score methods.

Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00013640); registered on 29th December 2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09646-6.

eHealth and mHealth in Chronic Diseases—Identification of Barriers, Existing Solutions, and Promoters Based on a Survey of EU Stakeholders Involved in Regions4PerMed (H2020)

Background: In recent years, rapid population ageing has become a worldwide phenomenon. Both electronic health services (eHealth) and mobile health services (mHealth) are becoming important components of healthcare delivery. The market for mHealth is growing extremely fast. However, despite the increasing investment and interest in eHealth, several challenges still need to be overcome to enable broader and more systematic implementation of ICT in healthcare. Methods: This study presents data from the survey “Barriers and facilitators of Personalised Medicine implementation- qualitative study under Regions4PerMed (H2020) project”. In addition, this paper discusses the results of the conference, Health Technology in Connected & Integrated Care, held under the Horizon 2020 project and interregional coordination for a fast and deep uptake of personalised health (Regions4Permed) (July 2020—online conference). The above sections were preceded by an analysis of existing articles. Results: The data obtained from the surveys show that the main barriers to the adoption of eHealth and mHealth are the lack of skills of seniors, but also the lack of user-friendly technology and a simple user interface. Access to individual data while ensuring its security and the lack of digitisation of medical data are also serious issues. In addition, medical digital solutions are overly fragmented due to national legislations that deviate from the General Data Protection Regulation. Conclusions: By using technological solutions, it is possible to improve diagnosis and treatment decisions, and better adapt treatment and reduce its duration and cost. However, there are still barriers to the development of eHealth. Clear recommendations for implementation are needed to enable further development of personalised eHealth and mHealth solutions

Patient Navigation-Who Needs What? Awareness of Patient Navigators and Ranking of Their Tasks in the General Population in Germany

The aim of the present study was to investigate the awareness of patient navigation (PN) in the general population in Germany and to assess which navigator tasks are considered most important. The analysis drew on a 2019 nationwide telephone survey of 6110 adults. We compared rankings of emotional support, administrative support and information among respondents with and without experience of patient navigation. One-fifth of the sample reported having heard of PNs; 13% of this group already had experience with PN. In both groups, the majority (>47%) considered assistance with applications to be most important. This was particularly the case among younger adults and those with a chronic disease. Within the inexperienced group, higher educated people had higher odds of ranking provision of information as most important for them, whereas women and those without a partner had higher odds of ranking emotional support as the most important task. This study shows that the majority of people predominantly expect PN services to offer administrative support, irrespective of their socioeconomic and health status. Whether these expectations are met by the diverse existing PN programs, which often have a strong focus on other tasks (e.g., increasing health literacy), has yet to be evaluated.

What do people with lung cancer and stroke expect from patient navigation? A qualitative study in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study investigated patients' needs and wishes in relation to patient navigation.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study was conducted. Participants were invited to take part in three in-depth interviews over a period of 6-12 months. Thematic analysis was used.

SETTING

Interviewees were sought in the Berlin metropolitan area of Germany in academic university hospitals, in rehabilitation clinics and through self-help organisations.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer (n=20) or stroke (n=20).

RESULTS

From the perspective of interviewees, patient navigators should function as consistent contact persons, present during the whole care trajectory. Their role would be to guide patients through an often confusing healthcare landscape, offering practical, advisory and emotional assistance corresponding to patients' needs. The study shows that-independent of the disease-participants had similar expectations and needs regarding support from navigators.

CONCLUSION

For chronic and complex diseases-as is the case with lung cancer and stroke-it appears less important for navigators to fulfil disease-specific tasks. Rather, they should ensure that patients' more general needs, in relation to social, practical and emotional support, are met in a way that suits their individual wishes. Following these results, patient navigation programmes might be designed to include generic elements, which should then be adapted to the infrastructure in a particular healthcare region and to the particularities of a specific healthcare system.

Nurse Navigators' Views on Patient and System Factors Associated with Navigation Needs among Women with Breast Cancer

Coordinating breast cancer treatment is a complex task that can overwhelm patients and their support networks. Though the Cancer Patient Navigator (CPN) program in Nova Scotia (NS) provides professional assistance to patients, certain groups of patients may still face barriers to accessing its services. Employing interviews and a modified Delphi approach with CPN participants, this study sought to identify factors associated with the need for navigation to help better target CPN program referrals among breast cancer patients. Six CPNs were recruited directly through the CPN program manager for interviews and surveys. The CPNs identified 27 different factors, which were divided into 4 categories: sociodemographic, psychological, clinical and health systems. While these patient factors (particularly sociodemographic) are not directly modifiable, awareness of their association with the need for navigation could be used to better target patients with a high need for navigation for referral to CPN services.

Patient information, communication and competence empowerment in oncology (PIKKO) - evaluation of a supportive care intervention for overall oncological patients. Study protocol of a non-randomized controlled trial

Background

Cancer patients have to undergo a difficult medical therapy and are also confronted with various psychological, social and economic problems. Support is available from many providers, but patients often gain no access to it. Accordingly, there is a need for a single point of contact that can provide advice, information and assistance. In the state of Saarland, Germany, a supportive new consulting and information path (PIKKO) for all types of cancer is currently evaluated by the German Cancer Society, the Cancer Society of the Saarland, three statutory health insurances and the Jena University Hospital. PIKKO is designed to improve quality of life, self-efficacy, health literacy and patient satisfaction and to reduce psychological distress, related health care costs and the days of inability to work. This methodical work presents the process and analysis planning of this evaluation.

Methods

The study population includes all cancer types, both new and existing diseases. PIKKO (with patient navigator, oncological knowledge database, specialized oncological counseling) is evaluated within a controlled, non-randomized, comparative, multicenter, longitudinal design. In addition to patient surveys, data from statutory health insurances and utilization data from the web database are collected, and interviews with patient navigators and doctors are carried out. Patients are assigned to a control (usual care) or an intervention group (u. c. + PIKKO). Primary outcome is the health related quality of life (SF-12) six months after baseline. Secondary outcomes are self-efficacy (GSE), psychological distress such as depression (PHQ-9) or anxiety (GAD-7), health literacy (HLS-EU-Q47) and patient satisfaction in health care (Qualiskope-A). Furthermore, the time course of direct costs of medical care (e.g. work disability days) and usage data of the intervention modules are analyzed. Among other statistical procedures, we use t-tests, univariate tests and growth curve models.

Discussion

If PIKKO proves to be effective, recommendations can be made to health organizations, which should lead to the concept being rolled out throughout Germany and included into oncological guidelines. We expect PIKKO to be a useful addition to usual cancer care, helping to improve the quality of life of cancer patients and reduce healthcare costs.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trial Register under DRKS00016703 (21.02.2019, the reason for the delay was the prioritization of the study management in the first year to establish the new approach into practice). https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016703

Improving quality of life in cancer patients through higher participation and health literacy: study protocol for evaluating the oncological social care project (OSCAR)

Background

Cancer patients experience psychological and social distress due to their medical treatment and social issues. However, continuous and specialized social support is still lacking. In Germany, a group of company health insurance funds has developed an approach to support cancer patients with monthly structured interviews conducted by specially trained Social Care Nurses. The nurses will identify patient needs in order to provide help with medical, personal, and social matters. One aim of the scientific evaluation is to analyze the effect of the consultations on various patient-reported outcomes, especially quality of life. The evaluation concept will be described in this study protocol.

Methods/design

The evaluation is a non-randomized, controlled, multi-center intervention study with a mixed-method design. It consists of three research modules which include primary data from questionnaires, and claims data from the health insurance funds. In Module 1, cancer patients will be recruited to form an intervention group (OSCAR, n = 150) and a control group (n = 200) in four study centers for a period of 1 year. One baseline and three follow-up questionnaires will be conducted to survey the patient-reported outcomes. Relevant secondary outcomes are health literacy, participation, and physician-patient communication. In Module 2, claims data will be used to analyze cost effects and thereby assess effectivity and hospitalization. Module 3 will involve a qualitative analysis of project diaries kept by the Social Care Nurses. The diaries will record the nurses’ practical experiences and the benefits of deploying OSCAR across the German healthcare system.

Discussion

OSCAR is an innovative way of providing cancer patients with continuous support to improve their quality of life. The evaluation concept aims to assess the effects of the monthly consultations by the Social Care Nurses on the patients, and will use a mixed-method design. The results are important for assessing the transferability of OSCAR to the healthcare system as a whole.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00013640). Registered 29 December 2017.