Survivorship care plans in research and practice

Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time.

METHODS

Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty.

RESULTS

Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP.

CONCLUSIONS

PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Receipt of follow-up care plans on colorectal cancer screening among breast, prostate, and lung cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to examine whether receipt of follow-up care plans is associated with greater guideline-concordant CRC screening stratified by breast, prostate, and lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

We used data from years 2016, 2018, and 2020 of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System on 3339 eligible treatment-utilizing cancer survivors with complete treatment. We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression to examine the mentioned association.

RESULTS

We observed that 83.9% of breast and 88.2% of prostate cancer survivors with follow-care plans received CRC screening (p-value < 0.001). The lowest CRC screening use was observed among lung cancer (70.8%). In multivariable analysis, receipt of follow-up care plans was strongly associated with greater odds of receiving CRC screening in breast (OR, 2.67; 95% CI: 1.71-4.16) and prostate (OR, 3.81; 95% CI: 2.30-6.31) cancer survivors. Regardless of provider type, 84 to 88% reduced likelihood of receipt of CRC screening when they received follow-up care plans among lung cancer survivors. Among those without follow-up care plans, breast (OR, 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.92) and lung (OR, 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.25) cancer survivors who received care from general practices were less likely to receive CRC screening compared to those who received care from non-general practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of follow-up care plans was associated with greater CRC screening use in breast and prostate cancers. Lung cancer survivors demonstrated lower screening use despite receipt of follow-up care plans.

IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patient and provider communication regarding CRC screening recommendation should be included in their follow-up care plans.

Scaling up and implementing the digital Survivorship Passport tool in routine clinical care - The European multidisciplinary PanCareSurPass project

BACKGROUND

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS), of whom there are about 500,000 living in Europe, are at an increased risk of developing health problems [1-6] and require lifelong Survivorship Care. There are information and knowledge gaps among CCS and healthcare providers (HCPs) about requirements for Survivorship Care [7-9] that can be addressed by the Survivorship Passport (SurPass), a digital tool providing CCS and HCPs with a comprehensive summary of past treatment and tailored recommendations for Survivorship Care. The potential of the SurPass to improve person-centred Survivorship Care has been demonstrated previously [10,11].

METHODS

The EU-funded PanCareSurPass project will develop an updated version (v2.0) of the SurPass allowing for semi-automated data entry and implement it in six European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Spain), representative of three infrastructure healthcare scenarios typically found in Europe. The implementation study will investigate the impact on person-centred care, as well as costs and processes of scaling up the SurPass. Interoperability between electronic health record systems and SurPass v2.0 will be addressed using the Health Level Seven (HL7) International interoperability standards.

RESULTS

PanCareSurPass will deliver an interoperable digital SurPass with comprehensive evidence on person-centred outcomes, technical feasibility and health economics impacts. An Implementation Toolkit will be developed and freely shared to promote and support the future implementation of SurPass across Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

PanCareSurPass is a novel European collaboration that will improve person-centred Survivorship Care for CCS across Europe through a robust assessment of the implementation of SurPass v2.0 in different healthcare settings.

Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of oncology trainees on function and cancer rehabilitation medicine

BACKGROUND

Improved function is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM) is a subspecialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) that focuses on improving function in patients with cancer. One of the barriers to patients accessing CRM services is the lack of referrals from oncology providers. Understanding the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of oncology trainees regarding the importance of function and the role of CRM is essential to reducing educational gaps and improving patients' access to essential rehabilitation services.

OBJECTIVE

To determine oncology trainees' knowledge, attitude and beliefs about the importance of function and the role of CRM in the care of patients with cancer.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in the United States.

INTERVENTION

Descriptive survey study was administered to postgraduate oncology trainees who spent at least 1 day a week providing patient care.

MAIN OUTCOME

Participants' report of their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs on the importance of function and CRM in the care of patients with cancer.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 197 oncology trainees with a response rate of 67% (n = 132) and 126 were ultimately included. All participants believed that function is important in the care of patients with cancer. The majority believed that better function improves treatment tolerance (94%) and survival (84%). Most reported that having CRM physicians (80%) and an inpatient rehabilitation unit (88%) in the oncological setting is important; however, most participants reported that they refer fewer than 25% of their patients to CRM services. Participants with prior exposure to PM&R were significantly more likely to consult PM&R compared to those without exposure (p = .005). Most oncology trainees (81%) believed that education in CRM should be part of their oncology training.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that oncology trainees believe that function is important. They also believe that access to CRM would improve treatment tolerance and survival, but most report that they rarely refer patients to CRM services. Most trainees desire increased exposure to CRM during oncology training.

'Survivorship care is one big gap': a qualitative study of post-treatment supportive care in Aotearoa New Zealand

BACKGROUND

This study focuses on the provision of supportive care services and programmes for cancer survivors post-treatment in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). It aims to aid our understanding of an often challenging and fragmented phase of cancer survivorship, and lay the groundwork for future research into the development of survivorship care in NZ.

METHODS

This study employed a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with a range of healthcare providers (n = 47) involved in service provision for cancer survivors post active treatment, including supportive care providers; clinical and allied health providers; primary health providers; and Māori health providers. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that cancer survivors in NZ face a range of psycho-social and physical issues post-treatment. The provision of supportive care to meet these needs is currently fragmented and inequitable. The key barriers to improved supportive care provision for cancer survivors post-treatment include a lack of capacity and resources within the existing cancer care framework; divergent attitudes to survivorship care within the cancer care workforce; and a lack of clarity around whose responsibility post-treatment survivorship care is.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-treatment cancer survivorship should be established as a distinct phase of cancer care. Measures could include greater leadership in the survivorship space; the implementation of a survivorship model(s) of care; and the use of survivorship care plans; all of which could help improve referral pathways, and clarify clinical responsibility for post-treatment survivorship care.

Feasibility of delivering survivorship care via lay health educators: A pilot randomized controlled trial among rural cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We tested the feasibility of survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery with/without a lay health educator (LHE) telephone-delivered information session among rural cancer survivors, and their effects on health-related self-efficacy and knowledge of cancer history.

METHODS

Randomized trial of cancer survivors from 3 rural oncology clinics featuring either SCP alone (control) or SCP plus LHE-delivered information session (intervention). Participants completed a questionnaire on health-related self-efficacy and knowledge of cancer-specific medical history. Responses were compared to medical records for accuracy. SCPs were then mailed to participants. Approximately 5 months later, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire. A subset of participants took part in subsequent qualitative interviews about their study experience.

FINDINGS

Of 301 survivors approached, 72 (23.9%) were randomized (mean age 66.4 years; 3.1 years from diagnosis; 62.5% female), and 65 (90.3%) completed the study. Global mental and physical health or self-efficacy scores did not change significantly from baseline to follow-up for either group. In exploratory analyses, self-efficacy increased in participants with inadequate/marginal health literacy in the intervention arm (+0.7, 95% CI = 0.1-1.2; P = .01). Accuracy of knowledge did not improve but was high at baseline (mean 76.0±14.5%). 60.1% and 48.4% of control and intervention participants, respectively, found SCPs definitely/somewhat useful. Qualitative data (n = 20) suggested that SCPs were helpful to patients when primary and oncology care were less integrated.

CONCLUSIONS

An LHE-delivered informational session was feasible but had limited benefit to rural cancer survivors versus delivery of SCP alone but may be of benefit to patients with low health literacy or with less integrated care.

Knowledge, Perception, and Skills, and Practices of Oncology Nurses in Cancer Survivorship Care: a Scoping Review

Survivorship care focuses on the well-being and quality of life of people affected by cancer. Oncology nurses play an essential role in survivorship care and must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and competencies to provide survivorship care. This scoping review explored the existing literature on nurses' knowledge, perception, skills, or practices in delivering cancer survivorship care for adult cancer survivors. A scoping review was conducted through databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo in February 2022, following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Fourteen original research studies were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and targeted oncology registered nurses. The studies primarily focused on the knowledge (n = 2, 14.3%), perception of responsibility (n = 8, 57.1%), and practice (n = 9, 64.3%) regarding survivorship care among oncology nurses, reporting widely varied results. Nine studies reported perceived skills, practice, and perceived barriers as the most used outcome measurements, while two assessed nurses' cancer survivorship care knowledge. The main gaps were discrepancies between oncology nurses' perceptions of responsibility and practices in delivering survivorship care. Lack of time, knowledge, and skills were reported as significant factors impeding survivorship care provision among oncology nurses. Limited research shows a gap in integrating knowledge into survivorship care practices among oncology nurses. Further studies are needed to develop educational programs on survivorship care to support the integration of survivorship care into oncology nurses' practice.

Childhood cancer survivorship care: A qualitative study of healthcare providers’ professional preferences

Purpose

Childhood cancer survivorship care is a complex specialty, though it is increasingly being integrated into the general practitioner’s (GP) remit. Establishing the essential components of tertiary- and primary-led care, to maximize the benefits and overcome the challenges inherent to each, is essential to inform the development of survivor-centered, sustainable care models.

Methods

We used the qualitative principles of semi-structured interviewing, verbatim transcription, coding (supported by NVivo12) and thematic analysis, to collect and evaluate the views and preferences of pediatric oncologists, survivorship nurse coordinators, and GPs currently caring for childhood cancer survivors.

Results

Seventy healthcare providers (19 oncology staff and 51 GPs) from 11 tertiary hospitals and 51 primary practices across Australia and New Zealand participated. Participants reported specialist expertise and holistic family-centered care as the key benefits of tertiary and primary care respectively. Participants reported that tertiary-led survivorship care was significantly challenged by a lack of dedicated funding and costs/travel burden incurred by the survivor, whereas primary-led survivorship care was challenged by insufficient GP training and GPs’ reliance on oncologist-developed action plans to deliver guideline-based care. GPs also reported a need for ongoing access to survivorship expertise/consultants to support care decisions at critical times. The discharge of survivors into primary care limited late-effects data collection and the rapid implementation of novel research findings.

Conclusions

Healthcare professionals report that while a risk-stratified, collaborative model of survivor-centered care is optimal, to be implemented successfully, greater provisions for the ongoing engagement of GPs and further access to GP education/training are needed.

High Value Care in Cancer Surveillance and Screening: Evaluating an e-Curriculum for Primary Care Providers

BACKGROUND

With an expected shortage of oncologists, primary care providers (PCPs) may need to manage more cancer surveillance and screening, areas where educational resources for PCPs have been limited. The goal of this e-curriculum was for PCPs to learn surveillance and screening for several common cancers.

METHODS

The e-curriculum covered breast and colorectal cancer surveillance and lung cancer screening with (1) a pre-test assessing knowledge, attitudes, practice patterns, and confidence; (2) case vignette-based teaching; and (3) an immediate post-test (with knowledge and confidence items identical to the pre-test) providing feedback. A delayed post-test was administered several months later. The curriculum and test items were developed by content experts and evaluated in a primary care group practice.

RESULTS

Of 167 community PCPs, 152 completed the pre-test (91%), 145 completed the immediate post-test (87%), and 63 completed the delayed post-test (37%); 62 PCPs completed all three tests (37%). The median score on the pre-test was 43%, immediate post-test was 93%, and delayed post-test was 70%. For PCPs completing all three tests, the median scores were 50%, 90%, and 70%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The percentage of PCPs confident in their knowledge 4 to 6 months after module completion compared to the pre-test baseline was statistically significant for lung cancer screening but not for cancer surveillance.

CONCLUSION

This curriculum provided concise, effective education for PCPs on 3 common cancers. Limitations include content breadth and lack of data reflecting physician ordering patterns. Curricular strengths include its accessibility, immediate feedback, and effectiveness, with a significant improvement in immediate and delayed post-test knowledge. Given a lack of increased confidence to provide cancer surveillance, PCPs should rely on electronic medical record tools and other resources to guide appropriate surveillance care.

The nutritional needs of older cancer survivors

Older adults comprise a large proportion of cancer survivors, and older cancer survivors have distinct nutritional needs. Herein, we summarize nutritional needs of older cancer survivors, describe approaches to identify nutritional impairments, and provide guidelines for clinicians to address nutritional needs.

Adherence to cardiovascular disease risk factor medications among patients with cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The most common cause of mortality for many cancer survivors is cardiovascular disease (CVD). This requires a shift in thinking where control of CVD risk factor-related comorbidity is paramount. Our objective was to provide an understanding of adherence to medications for the management of CVD risk factor-related comorbidities among cancer survivors.

METHODS

We systematically searched for articles indexed in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane (Wiley), PsycINFO, and Scopus (via Elsevier) for articles published from inception to October 31, 2019, and updated the search on June 7, 2021. English language, original research that assessed medication adherence to common CVD risk factor-related comorbidities among cancer survivors was included. We assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Of the 21 studies included, 57% focused on multiple cancer types. Seventy-one percent used pharmacy-based adherence measures. Two were prospective. Adherence was variable across cancer types and CVD risk factor-related comorbidities. Among the studies that examined changes in comorbid medication adherence, most noted a decline in adherence following cancer diagnosis and throughout cancer treatment. There was a focus on breast cancer populations.

CONCLUSIONS

CVD risk factor-related medication adherence is low among cancer survivors and declines over time. Given the risk for CVD-mortality among cancer survivors, testing of interventions aimed at improving adherence to non-cancer medications is critically needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

For many cancer survivors, regularly taking medications to manage CVD risk is important for longevity. Engaging with primary care throughout the cancer care trajectory may be important to support cardiovascular health.

Thai oncology nurses' perspectives toward survivorship care plan components and implementation for colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To describe oncology nurses' perspectives regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) components and implementation for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Thailand.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive online study was conducted between October and November 2020. Thai oncology nurses were recruited using Facebook and the Line application. Study participants (n = 160) rated the usefulness of four standard SCP components (treatment summaries, surveillance, late/long-term effects, and health promotion and psychosocial needs; n = 23 items) and gave input on the implementation of SCPs in clinical practice (n = 11 items). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most oncology nurses supported providing CRC survivors with SCPs (93.2%) and felt that SCPs were an important part of their practice (93.7%). Nurses rated all four SCP components as "very useful," including treatment summaries (76.4%), surveillance (81.9%), late/long-term effects (85.7%), and health behavior and psychosocial concerns (80.2%). In terms of implementation, most nurses indicated that oncologists should prepare (84.4%) and provide SCPs (95%), but 61.9% and 69.4% of nurses, respectively, also believed that they should perform these tasks. In addition, most nurses indicated that they should play a significant role in the ongoing management of CRC survivors (95.7%) and that evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed (96.2%).

CONCLUSION

Oncology nurses believed that the four SCP components were helpful to the long-term management of CRC survivors, supported SCP provision, and expressed their perceived responsibilities for preparing and delivering SCPs. The findings suggested opportunities for oncology nurses to play a significant role in developing and implementing SCPs. However, additional efforts are needed to expand nurses' roles in survivorship care and establish practice guidelines that will facilitate integration of SCPs into nursing practice.

Building Sustainable Practice Transformation Through Payment Reform Initiatives

PURPOSE

Novel value-based payment approaches provide an opportunity to deploy and sustain health care delivery interventions, such as treatment planning documentation. However, limited data are available on implementation costs.

METHODS

We described key factors affecting the cost of implementing care improvements under value-based payments, using treatment planning and Medicare's Oncology Care Model as examples. We estimated expected costs of implementing treatment plans for years 1 and 2-6 under (1) different staffing models, (2) use of technology, and (3) differences in the patients engaged. We compared costs to the payment amounts under the Oncology Care Model.

RESULTS

Team-based models where staffing is aligned with skills needed for key tasks (eg, a combination of lay navigator, nurse, and physician) are more financially feasible when compared with using physicians or nurses alone. When existing staff are at or near capacity, hiring new staff focused on practice transformation activities allows adequate time for new initiatives without negative impacts on existing services. Investments in information technology can enhance staff productivity, but initial costs may be high. Interventions may not be financially feasible if implemented for a small patient volume or only for patients insured by a particular payer. Finally, costs may be higher for disadvantaged populations, and equity in care delivery may require higher payments from payers.

CONCLUSION

Estimating the cost of implementing an intervention in different types of practice settings with various types of patients is essential to ensure that a value-based payment system will adequately support desired improvements in quality of care for all patients.

Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care

Transitioning survivorship care from oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs) is a reasonable alternative to oncologist-led care. This study assessed oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding sharing/transitioning survivorship care. A prospective survey of oncologists within a regional cancer program assessing self-reported barriers and facilitators to sharing/transitioning survivorship care was disseminated. In total, 63% (n = 39) of surveyed oncologists responded. Patient preference (89%) and anxiety (84%) are key to transition of care decisions; reduced remuneration (95%) and fewer longitudinal relationships (63%) do not contribute. Oncologists agreed that more patients could be shared/transitioned. Barriers include treatment-related toxicities (82% agree), tumor-specific factors (60–90% agree) and perception of PCP willingness to participate in survivorship care (47% agree). Oncologists appear willing to share/transition more survivors to PCPs, though barriers exist that warrant further study. Understanding these issues is critical to developing policies supporting comprehensive survivorship care models that address both cancer and non-cancer health needs. The demonstrated feasibility of this project warrants a larger-scale survey of oncologists with respect to the transition of survivorship care to PCPs, to further inform effective interventions to support high-quality survivorship care.

Communicating Critical Information to Cancer Survivors: an Assessment of Survivorship Care Plans in Use in Diverse Healthcare Settings

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) serve to communicate critical information needed for cancer survivors' long-term follow-up care. The extent to which SCPs are tailored to meet the specific needs of underserved patient populations is understudied. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the content and communication appropriateness of SCPs collected from diverse healthcare settings. We analyzed collected SCPs (n = 16) for concordance with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for SCP content and for communication appropriateness using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. All plans failed to incorporate all IOM criteria, with the majority of plans (n = 11) incorporating less than 60% of recommended content. The average reading grade level of all the plans was 14, and only one plan received a superior rating for cultural appropriateness. There is significant variation in the format and content of SCPs used in diverse hospital settings and most plans are not written at an appropriate reading grade level nor tailored for underserved and/or minority patient populations. Co-designing SCPs with diverse patient populations is crucial to ensure that these documents are meeting the needs and preferences of all cancer survivors.

Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches

BACKGROUND

Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning.

METHODS

Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21+ completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomized, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type, 1:1:1 to (a)mailed plan, (b)plan delivered during one-time transition visit, or (c)plan delivered during transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 378 participants randomized, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site, 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% one-visit, 42.7% two-visit (2-sided P = 0.60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, one-visit, and two-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors

Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) can have multiple health concerns. To facilitate their care, we developed and pilot-tested a clinical informatics intervention, HN-STAR. HN-STAR elicits concerns online from HNC survivors prior to a routine oncology clinic visit. HN-STAR then presents tailored evidence-based clinical recommendations as a clinical decision support tool to be used during the visit where the oncology clinician and survivor select symptom management strategies and other actions. This generates a survivorship care plan (SCP). Online elicitation of health concerns occurs 3, 6, and 9 months after the clinic visit, generating an updated SCP each time. HN-STAR encompasses important methods of improving survivorship care (e.g., needs assessment, tailored interventions, dissemination of guidelines) and will be evaluated in a pragmatic trial to maximize external validity. This hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial tests HN-STAR effectiveness while studying barriers and facilitators to implementation in community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Effectiveness will be measured as differences in key survivorship outcomes between HNC participants who do and do not use HN-STAR over one year after the clinic visit. The primary endpoint is HNC-specific quality of life; other outcomes include patient-centered measures and receipt of guideline-concordant care. Implementation outcomes will be assessed of survivors, providers, and clinic stakeholders. The hybrid design will provide insight into a dose-response relationship between the extent of implementation fidelity and effectiveness outcomes, as well as how to incorporate HN-STAR into standard practice outside the research setting.

Nursing intervention focusing on health promotion behaviors in adult cancer patients: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to map and provide an overview of literature concerning nursing strategies and intervention programs that promote healthy behaviors in cancer patients.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework developed by Joanna Briggs Institute and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. Twelve databases were searched (2012-2019). Retrieved data included descriptive analyses exploring studies' methodological characteristics and results.

RESULTS

From 1589 studies, 12 were included. Most studies included patients on survivorship period (n=10) and selected intervention strategies focusing patient's knowledge and awareness (n=8). Educational sessions were supported by behavioral change reinforcements and motivational incentives. Only two of the considered studies analysed intervention cost effectiveness, but none disclosed intervention-related costs.

CONCLUSION

Nursing interventions are effective in promoting health behaviors when include health education and encouragement towards change. Survivorship is the perfect time for health promotion. Nurses can be considered health promoters, by encouraging health education and enhance survivor's motivation.

Acceptability and feasibility of survivorship care plans and an accompanying mobile health intervention for adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer

BACKGROUND

Self-management interventions for adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of childhood cancer are needed. The present study reports on the acceptability and feasibility of delivering survivorship care plans (SCPs) and an accompanying app to AYA.

PROCEDURE

AYA (n = 224) ages 15-29 who completed treatment for cancer were randomized and received a digital SCP only or an SCP plus a mobile app intended to enhance self-management. For 16 weeks, the app delivered one to two daily messages complementing information in their SCP and tailored based on age, treatment, and health goal. Data are presented on feasibility, self-reported acceptability (including satisfaction and perceived benefits) and its relationship to app engagement (for those in app group), and feedback from qualitative interviews conducted with 10 AYA.

RESULTS

The SCP and app proved feasible as evidenced by high recruitment and retention, access to technology, time analysis, moderate app engagement, and minimal technical issues. However, 12% reported never reading the SCP and 8% never used the app. The app and SCP were acceptable to AYA, and SCP acceptability ratings did not differ between groups. For those with the app, acceptability was positively related to message engagement. AYA recommended enhanced individualization and design features of the SCP and app.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the use of tailored SCPs and mobile health interventions for most AYA, as well as the need for further refinement and research. Delivery of SCPs and digital interventions are acceptable and feasible to AYA survivors, and may help promote health-related knowledge and survivorship self-management.

Developing a survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery process for patients and primary care providers serving poor, rural, and minority patients with cancer

Background

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) summarize patients’ treatment and act as an education and communication tool between oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs). But creation and delivery of SCPs are challenging, labor intensive, and costly. The University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNM CCC) treats a poor, rural, and minority patient population, and our purpose was to implement and evaluate a process to create and deliver SCPs to patients and PCPs.

Methods

Providers placed an electronic SCP order, basic information was imported, and staff compiled treatment details. Flagged SCPs were then ready for delivery, providers approved of and delivered the SCP at the next encounter, and the SCP was sent to the PCP.

Results

By April 2020, 283 SCPs were ordered, 241 (85.2%) were created by the designated staff, and 97 (34.2%) were given to patients after definitive therapy for breast cancer (59.1%), gynecological cancers (10.8%), prostate cancer (7.4%), colorectal cancer (5.1%), and lymphomas (4.8%). Of 97 SCPs eligible to be sent to PCPs, 75 (77.3%) were mailed or sent via EMR. Of the 41 (48.9%) SCPs sent via mail or fax, only 8 (8.3%) were received and 5 (5.2%) integrated.

Conclusions

This study shows that SCPs can be delivered to patients in a poor, rural, and minority patient population but that PCP receipt and integration of SCPs are poor. Future efforts need to ensure that an oncologist to PCP education and communication tool is able reach and be integrated by PCPs.

Dissemination of cancer survivorship care plans: who is being left out?

OBJECTIVES

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend a clear and effectively explained comprehensive survivorship care plan (SCP) be given to all cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to understand the relationship between social determinants of health (SDOH) and self-reported receipt of SCP by cancer survivors in the USA.

METHODS

We analyzed an adult population of cancer survivors in the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System's (BRFSS) Survivorship modules. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association of SDOH and reported receipt of SCP.

RESULTS

There were 7061 cancer patients eligible for an SCP. The probability of reporting receipt of SCP decreased with lower educational achievement (high school/some college: AOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, p = 0.02; < high school: AOR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.97, p = 0.03) compared to those with at least one college degree. Additionally, being widowed/divorced/separated (widowed/divorced/separated: AOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61-0.86, p < 0.01 vs. married/cohabiting) and uninsured (uninsured: AOR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.0.34-0.80, p < 0.01 vs. insured) increased the odds of not receiving an SCP. Younger patients were more likely to receive an SCP than those over 65 (18-24 years: AOR = 6.62, 95% CI: 1.87-24.49, p < 0.01 vs. 65+ years).

CONCLUSION

Among cancer survivors, SDOH such as low educational achievement, widowed/divorced/separated marital status, and being uninsured were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an SCP. Future studies should evaluate how omission of SCP in these patients influences the quality of care during the transition from oncologists to primary care.

An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module

BACKGROUND

Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each.

CONCLUSION

The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

An integrative review: Women's psychosocial vulnerability in relation to paid work after a breast cancer diagnosis

AIM

The aim of this integrative review was to explore psychosocial vulnerabilities in women after a breast cancer diagnosis that are related to their paid work.

DESIGN

The review methodology was guided by Whittemore and Knafl. The Mehnert Cancer Survivorship and Work Model provided a lens through which to view vulnerability in working women with a focus on facilitating interventions to improve both recovery and work outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycNET databases were searched for English language papers published between January 2014-June 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Titles and abstracts were screened. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were then applied to full text screen of the remaining articles following PRISMA guidelines. Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. A constant comparison approach was used to systematically distil findings into categories and assess their fit within the Mehnert Model subdomains.

RESULTS

Vulnerabilities coalesced predominantly within the following subdomains: (a) changes in identity and role functioning; (b) social reintegration; (c) coping strategies; and (d) social supports. Patterns and themes within these subdomains were related both positively and negatively to form the contours of a survivor's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with quality of life related to work and breast cancer recovery.

CONCLUSION

Overall, findings highlight the importance of employment and work environments in bolstering women's psychosocial health after a breast cancer diagnosis.

IMPACT

Findings from this review support adapting psychosocial distress screening to include vulnerabilities relating to work life. Nurses are ideally positioned to facilitate this screening and engage clinicians in a dialogue surrounding patient's support needs due to nursing's central role on the interdisciplinary team. Nurses may also foster collective accountability for implementing ongoing multidisciplinary survivorship care plans that include a return to work component.

Gaps in patient-centered follow-up cancer care: a cross sectional study

Objective There are published guidelines on the care that should be provided to cancer patients upon finishing treatment (i.e. follow-up care). Gaps in care may arise where patients' reported experiences of care do not align with guideline recommendations. The aim of this study was to explore whether oncology patients report gaps in patient-centered follow-up care. Methods This study was a cross-sectional survey of adult cancer patients receiving follow-up care within four outpatient oncology clinics. Patients were approached in clinic waiting rooms and asked to complete an electronic survey. The survey examined patients' self-report of receiving six aspects of follow-up care. Results A total of 239 participants completed the survey (study consent rate = 83%). Only 49% of participants received all six items of care. Patients reported high rates of being told who to contact if they have any questions or concerns (95%); who to contact if signs or symptoms occur (91%); and what to expect in their follow-up care (90%). A lower proportion of patients indicated they were informed about the role of their GP after treatment has finished (79%); what symptoms or signs might suggest the cancer had returned (74%); or were given a written care plan (71%). Conclusions: The study highlights that there is a gap between some aspects of optimal patient-centered care, and the actual care received by patients. Health care providers and researchers should consider how to improve follow-up care experiences to ensure best practice cancer care delivery during this important stage in cancer survivorship.

Evaluation of the discussion of late effects and screening recommendations in survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) lymphoma

PURPOSE

The study objective was to assess the discussion of late effects (LEs) and screening recommendations (SRs) for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) treated for lymphoma.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on AYA lymphoma survivors aged 15-24 years at diagnosis who received radiation therapy (RT) ± chemotherapy between 1984 and 2010 at any of the six British Columbia (BC) Cancer treatment centers across the province. Charts were reviewed to evaluate discussion of LEs and SRs. Susceptibility to specific LEs was determined by reviewing treatment details.

RESULTS

Of 305 patients, 212 (70%) had documented discussion of at least one specific LE, 39 (13%) had non-specific documentation only, and 54 (18%) had no documented discussion of LEs. Accounting only for patients susceptible to each LEs, the most frequently discussed LEs was radiation-induced (RI) neoplasm (42%), and the least frequently discussed LEs was carotid artery stenosis (0.4%). The most common SRs discussed in susceptible patients was for RI breast cancer (43%). Of patients discharged between 1985 and 1999 vs 2000 and 2014, LEs were discussed in 63 vs 93% (P < 0.0005), and SRs were discussed in 30 vs 65%, respectively (P < 0.0005). Older age at discharge, presence of a discharge note, and occurrence of a discharge appointment were associated with increased discussion of SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most survivors of AYA lymphoma received some discussion of LEs and SRs, but each relevant LEs and SRs was discussed in only a minority of susceptible patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors of AYA lymphoma and their primary care professionals may not be appropriately informed of health risks and how to screen for them.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

A structural equation modeling approach to understanding pathways linking survivorship care plans to survivor-level outcomes

PURPOSE

Several high-profile organizations have mandated the delivery of survivorship care plans (SCPs) despite mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of SCPs on key survivor-level outcomes. There is a need to understand the types of survivor-level outcomes the SCPs are likely to change. Informed by existing frameworks and the literature, the objective of this study was to understand the pathways linking the receipt of a SCP to key survivor-level outcomes including patient-centered communication (PCC), health self-efficacy, changes in health behaviors, and improvements in overall health.

METHODS

We used structural equation modeling to test the direct and indirect pathways linking the receipt of an SCP to patient-centered communication (PCC), health self-efficacy, and latent measures of health behaviors and physical health in a nationally representative sample of breast and colorectal cancer survivors from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

RESULTS

The receipt of an SCP did not have a significant effect on key survivor-level outcomes and was removed from the final structural model. The final structural model fit the data adequately well (Chi-square p value = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = .88, and WRMR = 0.73). PCC had a significant direct effect on physical health but not on health behaviors. Health self-efficacy had a significant direct effect on physical health and health behaviors.

CONCLUSION

The receipt of an SCP alone is unlikely to facilitate changes in PCC, health self-efficacy, health behaviors, or physical health.

IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

A SCP is a single component of a larger model of survivorship care and should be accompanied by ongoing efforts that promote PCC, health self-efficacy, and changes in health behaviors resulting in improvements to physical health.

Healthcare provider perspectives on pediatric cancer survivorship care plans: a single institution pilot study

PURPOSE

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are used to facilitate communication between oncology and primary care providers (PCPs) after cancer treatment and to assist cancer survivors with healthcare decisions. We evaluated pediatric oncology providers' experiences creating and delivering SCPs. We also evaluated PCPs' opinions of SCPs.

METHODS

Together, oncology nurses and oncologists created individualized SCPs for leukemia patients treated at a children's hospital in Utah, with nurses in charge of inputting the majority of SCP content. We surveyed providers after each SCP was completed. We also mailed SCPs to PCPs with a survey on SCP content and their knowledge and comfort level caring for cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey content.

RESULTS

A total of 6 nurses and 8 oncologists created 21 SCPs. On average, nurses assisted with 3.5 SCPs and spent 209 min (range 100-600 min) on completing their sections of each SCP, whereas oncologists assisted with 2.6 SCPs and spent 47.4 min (range 15-120). For most SCPs, there was agreement that they should be shared with PCPs (nurse surveys 71.4%, oncologist surveys 100%). Of the 15 participating PCPs, only 28% felt prepared to manage long-term effects in pediatric cancer survivors. They agreed that the SCP would improve communication with their patient's oncologist (80%) and their knowledge for future care (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

SCPs require substantial clinician time to create, but are seen as useful by PCPs. PCPs require specific guidelines and resources concerning ongoing care for pediatric cancer survivors.

Image of Your Own Body, Sense of Isolation and Quality of Life in Patients with Gynecological Cancers

Aim: to study mental state of gynecological oncological patients, their attitude to the existing disease and quality of life.

Material and methods. The study was conducted on the basis of the City Clinical Hospital No. 1 of Novosibirsk. The main group (17women aged 29 to 60 years) included patients with ovarian cancer, cancer of the external female genital organs, and uterine cancer; the comparison group was comprised of 20 people aged 29 to 63 years without a history of cancer.

Results. In gynecological oncological patients, dissatisfaction with their own bodies is more pronounced; they perceive their body distorted, which may be due to the characteristics of the disease and the specifics of treatment. Patients with gynecological cancers have a more pronounced subjective feeling of loneliness, but it is at the upper limit of the norm, which may mean the fact that these patients turn in upon themselves, in their experiences, as well as the feeling of something lost in their inner world. Patients with gynecological cancers showed an average level of quality of life and low indicators of the mental component of health, which indicates reduced functioning and a significant effect of the patient’s physical and emotional state on daily activities.

Conclusion. The mental state of the cancer patient, his ability to withstand stress, his attitude to the existing disease affect the treatment process and further quality of life.

Accuracy and acceptability of survivorship care plans: results of a pilot study

Survivorship treatment summaries and care plans are increasingly incorporated into cancer care but there are limited data on their accuracy and acceptability. We have evaluated written care plans developed as part of a once-off, nurse-led survivorship consultations across four medical oncology clinics in South Australia as part of a state-wide pilot. While the accuracy of treatment summaries was high, level of detail in care plans was moderate to low, as was survivors' perception of plans' utility.

Impact of treatment summaries for cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted.

RESULTS

Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.

Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision.

METHODS

We searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome.

RESULTS

Eight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on self-reported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or self-efficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects.

CONCLUSION

SCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.

Factors Influencing Delivery of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans: A National Patterns of Care Study

Nearly half of all Americans will develop cancer at least once in their lifetime. Through improved screening and treatments, the number of cancer survivors is reaching all-time highs. However, survivorship care plans (SCPs) are inconsistently used, denying many survivors access to critical information. This study used 46,408 SCPs generated from 2007 to 2016 and applied machine learning to identify predictors of SCP creation, including cancer type, type of physician, and healthcare center where they received care, as well as regional variations in care plan creation. Identifying these disparities in SCP use is a critical first step in efforts toward expanding access to survivorship care planning. Using a convenience sample of survivors, it is possible to model the factors that predict generation of SCPs either by the survivor or by a healthcare provider. This study identifies several important disparities both survivor intrinsic such as cancer type, as well as treatment associated and geographic differences in SCP generation. Identifying these disparities at the national level across cancer types will allow for more targeted recommendations to improve SCP creation and dissemination in underserved groups.

Survivorship and Caregiver Issues in Neuro-oncology

OPINION STATEMENT

As cancer care has evolved so has the awareness of the issues cancer patients, their caregivers and families face during and after treatment, giving rise to the cancer survivorship care initiative. The body of research pertaining to quality of life, health-related quality of life, and multidimensional symptom burden of neuro-oncology patients and their caregivers has grown significantly, yielding a wealth of data and information indicating interventions and actions targeting symptoms and needs are both warranted and desired. The provision of survivorship care aiming to deliver care in a patient-centered, whole-person model offers a means by which these interventions and actions can be actualized. The research specific to survivorship care models and survivorship care plans and their delivery remains a large opportunity, one worth the careful consideration and participation of neuro-oncology healthcare providers for the benefit of their highly deserving patients and their caregivers and families.

Incorporating Multiple Perspectives Into the Development of an Electronic Survivorship Platform for Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

To improve the care of survivors of head and neck cancer, we developed the Head and Neck Survivorship Tool: Assessment and Recommendations (HN-STAR). HN-STAR is an electronic platform that incorporates patient-reported outcomes into a clinical decision support tool for use at a survivorship visit. Selections in the clinical decision support tool automatically populate a survivorship care plan (SCP). We aimed to refine HN-STAR by eliciting and incorporating feedback on its ease of use and usefulness.

METHODS

Human-computer interaction (HCI) experts reviewed HN-STAR using think-aloud testing and the Nielsen Heuristic Checklist. Nurse practitioners (NPs) thought aloud while reviewing the clinical decision support tool and SCP and responded to an interview. Survivors used HN-STAR as part of a routine visit and were interviewed afterward. We analyzed themes from the feedback. We described how we addressed each theme to improve the usability of HN-STAR.

RESULTS

Five HCI experts, 10 NPs, and 10 cancer survivors provided complementary usability insight that we categorized into themes of improvements. For ease of use, themes included technical design considerations to enhance user interface, ease of completion of a self-assessment, streamlining text, disruption of the clinic visit, and threshold for symptoms to appear on the SCP. The theme addressing usefulness was efficiency and comprehensiveness of the clinic visit. For each theme, we report revisions to HN-STAR in response to the feedback.

CONCLUSION

HCI experts provided key technical design insights into HN-STAR, whereas NPs and survivors provided usability feedback and clinical perspectives. We incorporated the feedback into the preparation for additional testing of HN-STAR. This method can inform and improve the ease of use and usefulness of the survivorship applications.

Comparing Shared Patient Networks Across Payers

BACKGROUND

Measuring care coordination in administrative data facilitates important research to improve care quality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare shared patient networks constructed from administrative claims data across multiple payers.

DESIGN

Social network analysis of pooled cross sections of physicians treating prevalent colorectal cancer patients between 2003 and 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists identified from North Carolina Central Cancer Registry data linked to Medicare claims (N = 1735) and private insurance claims (N = 1321).

MAIN MEASURES

Provider-level measures included the number of patients treated, the number of providers with whom they share patients (by specialty), the extent of patient sharing with each specialty, and network centrality. Network-level measures included the number of providers and shared patients, the density of shared-patient relationships among providers, and the size and composition of clusters of providers with a high level of patient sharing.

RESULTS

For 24.5% of providers, total patient volume rank differed by at least one quintile group between payers. Medicare claims missed 14.6% of all shared patient relationships between providers, but captured a greater number of patient-sharing relationships per provider compared with the private insurance database, even after controlling for the total number of patients (27.242 vs 26.044, p < 0.001). Providers in the private network shared a higher fraction of patients with other providers (0.226 vs 0.127, p < 0.001) compared to the Medicare network. Clustering coefficients for providers, weighted betweenness, and eigenvector centrality varied greatly across payers. Network differences led to some clusters of providers that existed in the combined network not being detected in Medicare alone.

CONCLUSION

Many features of shared patient networks constructed from a single-payer database differed from similar networks constructed from other payers' data. Depending on a study's goals, shortcomings of single-payer networks should be considered when using claims data to draw conclusions about provider behavior.

Implications for patient-provider communication and health self-efficacy among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions experience significant challenges managing their health. The six core functions of patient-centered communication (PCC)-fostering healing relationships, exchanging information, responding to emotions, managing uncertainty, making decisions, and enabling patient self-management-represent a central component to facilitating a survivor's confidence to manage their health that has not been investigated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions.

METHOD

Nationally representative data across two iterations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Adjusted linear regression examined the association between PCC and health self-efficacy in a sample of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors and by multiple chronic conditions.

RESULTS

53.9% reported that providers did not always respond to their emotions and 48.9% reported that they could not always rely on their providers to help them manage uncertainty. In the adjusted linear regression models, there was a significant positive association between PCC and health self-efficacy (β = 0.2, p = 0.01) for the entire sample. However, the association between PCC and health self-efficacy was attenuated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (β = 0.1, p = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

PCC alone is not enough to improve a cancer survivor's confidence in their ability to manage their health in the presence of multiple chronic conditions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions need ongoing support, in addition to PCC, that render them prepared to manage their health after cancer.

The Integration of Survivorship Care Planning at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Research has demonstrated that cancer survivors who receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) have better coordinated follow-up care, higher overall satisfaction, and report significantly fewer posttreatment emotional concerns. The Commission on Cancer, a program of the American College of Surgeons, has developed a standard of care in which 100% of eligible patients are to receive an SCP by the end of 2019. Nurse practitioners at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated academic medical center worked to develop a standardized process to deliver SCPs to all eligible patients. The primary objective of the project was to standardize how SCPs were completed and embed them into the electronic medical record (EMR) using a templated note created for the EMR. Through an interdisciplinary steering committee, survivorship priorities were established and aligned with LIVESTRONG and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. In addition, survivorship care planning was identified as an essential service to be provided by all cancer disease management groups (DMG) at the cancer center. A cancer SCP subcommittee was formed to explore methods to expand the delivery of SCPs and standardize the SCP process. Prior to this project, SCPs were being done by less than 10% of the providers and only for a few diagnoses, and no standardized method of documentation existed prior to this quality improvement initiative. The standardization of the SCP has increased both participation of other DMGs as well as increased the rate of completion to 34%. We believe that continuous reassessment and process improvement will help us reach the Commission on Cancer goal of providing SCPs to all eligible patients.

Survivorship Care Plan Implementation in US Cancer Programs: a National Survey of Cancer Care Providers

Survivorship care plans (SCPs)-documents intended to improve care for cancer survivors who have completed active treatment-are required, yet implementation is poor. We sought to understand SCP implementation in cancer programs in the USA with the objective of identifying opportunities for improvement. We recruited cancer care providers in the USA via several cancer care networks to participate in a survey regarding SCP implementation. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Three hundred ninety-five providers from diverse cancer programs in 47 states and Washington, DC responded to the survey. The timing of SCP implementation varied across and within cancer programs, with approximately 40% of respondents reporting developing SCPs more than 3 months after primary treatment or adjuvant therapy completion. Nurse navigators were responsible for 48-58% of each stage of SCP implementation. Processes that could have been automated often occurred in-person or via phone and vice versa. Respondents reported spending more than 2 h per SCP to complete all stages of implementation, of which less than a third was reimbursed by third-party payers. We identified several opportunities for improving SCP implementation, including broadening the base of responsibility, optimizing modes of communication, decreasing the time required and increasing the funding available, and limiting variation in SCP implementation across and within cancer programs. Future work should assess the influence of approaches to SCP implementation on desired outcomes.

Impact of lymphoma survivorship clinic visit on patient-centered outcomes

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors may experience physical, social, and emotional effects of cancer and its treatments. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend the development of a survivorship care plan (SCP) for cancer patients following completion of treatment with curative intent. Our institution developed a lymphoma survivorship clinic (SC) to assess patient needs, provide education, and create and deliver SCPs. This study analyzed the impact of a SC visit on patient-centered outcomes.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to lymphoma patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester within 4 weeks of their post-treatment visit to the SC that queried patient-reported outcomes, including experience of care, quality of life (QOL), and distress. We compared survey responses between those who attended the SC and those who were eligible but did not attend.

RESULTS

From November 2013 to May 2015, 236 lymphoma patients were surveyed, 96 of whom had a SC visit and 140 of who were eligible but did not attend. Those who attended the SC were more likely to "definitely" recall discussion on improving health, preventing illness, and making changes in habits/lifestyle, diet, and exercise. There were no differences in QOL or distress. Adjusted analyses revealed that SC attendance was associated with better self-reported overall health among younger patients and better physical well-being in Hodgkin lymphoma patients compared to those with other subtypes of lymphoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in the lymphoma SC improved patient education on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors. There may be a particular benefit in younger patients. However, there were no differences in QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if improved survivorship education and SCP delivery leads to long-term health benefits in cancer survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our study evaluates the clinical impact of a SC in patients treated for lymphoma. We demonstrate that a SC visit improves patient education regarding health behaviors.

Transition to survivorship: can there be improvement?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The transition from primary cancer treatment to posttreatment follow-up care is seen as critical to the long-term health of survivors. However, relatively little attention has been paid to understanding this pivotal period. This review will offer a brief outline of the significant work surrounding this pivotal time published in the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

The growing number of cancer survivors has stimulated an emphasis on finding new models of care, whereby responsibility for survivorship follow-up is transitioned to primary care providers. A variety of models and tools have emerged for follow-up care. Survivorship care plans are heralded as a key component of survivorship care and a vehicle for supporting transition. Uptake of survivorship care plans and implementation of evidence-based models of survivorship care has been slow, hindered by a range of barriers.

SUMMARY

Evaluation is needed regarding survivorship models in terms of feasibility, survivor friendliness, cost effectiveness, and achievement of sustainable outcomes. How, and when, to introduce plans for transition to the patient and determine transition readiness are important considerations but need to be informed by evidence. Additional study is needed to identify best practice for the introduction and application of survivorship care plans.

Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Utilization and Impact on Clinical Decision-Making at Point-of-Care Visits with Primary Care: Results from an Engineering, Primary Care, and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health

Every cancer survivor and his/her primary care provider should receive an individualized survivorship care plan (SCP) following curative treatment. Little is known regarding point-of-care utilization at primary care visits. We assessed SCP utilization in the clinical context of primary care visits. Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) who had seen survivors following provision of an SCP were identified. Eligible primary care physicians and APPs were sent an online survey, evaluating SCP utilization and influence on decision-making at the point-of-care, accompanied by copies of the survivor's SCP and the clinic note. Eighty-eight primary care physicians and APPs were surveyed November 2016, with 40 (45%) responding. Most respondents (60%) reported discussing cancer or related issues during the visit. Information needed included treatment (66%) and follow-up visits, and the cancer team was responsible for (58%) vs primary care (58%). Respondents acquired this information by asking the patient (79%), checking oncology notes (75%), the SCP (17%), or online resources (8%). Barriers to SCP use included being unaware of the SCP (73%), difficulty locating it (30%), and finding needed information faster via another mechanism (15%). Despite largely not using the SCP for the visit (90%), most respondents (61%) believed one would be quite or very helpful for future visits. Most primary care visits included discussion of cancer or cancer-related issues. SCPs may provide the information necessary to deliver optimal survivor care but efforts are needed to reduce barriers and design SCPs for primary care use.

Do Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Plans Improve Health Outcomes?

Although they have been widely studied, important questions remain about the impact of breast cancer survivorship care plans on improving health outcomes. The goal of this article was to review published studies on the impact of cancer survivorship care plans on health outcomes and health care delivery among breast cancer survivors. A total of 111 article citations were identified in PubMed and non-duplicates in CINAHL. After screening the abstracts or full texts of these articles and reviewing the references of previous review articles, 7 studies met the eligibility criteria. All of the studies had a randomized controlled design. Early trials of the efficacy of breast cancer survivorship care plans generally showed little or no improvement in health outcomes. The positive findings of recent studies suggest that survivorship care interventions that empower and activate patients to self-manage their follow-up care and improve patient-provider communication may be especially promising.

Automating Treatment Summary Development Using Electronic Billing Information: A Pilot Study of Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Although the provision of a treatment summary (TS) is a quality indicator in oncology, routine delivery of TSs remains challenging. Automatic TS generation could facilitate use, but data on accuracy are lacking in complex cancers such as head and neck cancer (HNC). We developed and evaluated an electronic platform to automate TS generation for HNC.

METHODS

The algorithms autopopulated TSs using data from billing records and an institutional cancer registry. A nurse practitioner used the medical record to verify the accuracy of the information and made corrections electronically. Inaccurate and missing data were considered errors. We described and investigated reasons for errors in the automatically generated TSs.

RESULTS

We enrolled a heterogeneous population of 43 survivors of HNC. Using billing data, the information on primary site, lymph node status, radiation, and chemotherapy use was accurate in 93%, 95%, 93%, and 95% of patients, respectively. Billing data captured surgery accurately in 77% of patients; once an omitted billing code was identified, accuracy increased to 98%. Chemotherapies were captured in 90% of patients. Using the cancer registry, month and year of diagnosis were accurate in 91% of cases; stage was accurate in 28% of cases. Reprogramming the algorithm to ascertain clinical stage when pathologic stage was unavailable resulted in 100% accuracy. The algorithms inconsistently identified radiation receipt and treating physicians from billing data.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to automatically and accurately generate most components of TSs for HNC using billing and cancer registry data, although clinical review is necessary in some cases.

Randomized controlled trial of individualized treatment summary and survivorship care plans for hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors

Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) may facilitate long-term care for cancer survivors, but their effectiveness has not been established in hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. We evaluated the impact of individualized SCPs on patient-reported outcomes among transplant survivors. Adult (≥18 years at transplant) survivors who were 1-5 years post transplantation, proficient in English, and without relapse or secondary cancers were eligible for this multicenter randomized trial. SCPs were developed based on risk-factors and treatment exposures using patient data routinely submitted by transplant centers to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and published guidelines for long-term follow up of transplant survivors. Phone surveys assessing patient-reported outcomes were conducted at baseline and at 6 months. The primary end point was confidence in survivorship information, and secondary end points included cancer and treatment distress, knowledge of transplant exposures, health care utilization, and health-related quality of life. Of 495 patients enrolled, 458 completed a baseline survey and were randomized (care plan=231, standard care=227); 200 (87%) and 199 (88%) completed the 6-month assessments, respectively. Patients’ characteristics were similar in the two arms. Participants on the care plan arm reported significantly lower distress scores at 6 months and an increase in the Mental Component Summary quality of life score assessed by the Short Form 12 (SF-12) instrument. No effect was observed on the end point of confidence in survivorship information or other secondary outcomes. Provision of individualized SCPs generated using registry data was associated with reduced distress and improved mental domain of quality of life among 1-5 year hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors. Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov 02200133.

Survivorship care for early-stage colorectal cancer: a national survey of general surgeons and colorectal surgeons

AIM

Few data are available on the optimal long-term care of early-stage colorectal cancer survivors, termed survivorship care. We aimed to investigate current practice in the management of patients following treatment for early-stage colorectal cancer.

METHOD

We performed an internet survey of members of the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgeons about several aspects of long-term care, including allocation of clinician responsibility, challenges with transitions to primary care physicians (PCPs), long-term care plan provision and recommended surgical follow-up duration.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 surgeons responded. Surgeons reported taking primary responsibility for managing adverse surgical effects (93.2%) and surveillance testing (imaging and laboratories 68.6%, endoscopy 82.4%). Barriers to PCP handoffs included patient preference for surgical follow-up (endorsed by 76.6%) and inadequate communication with PCPs (endorsed by 36.9%). Approximately one-third of surgeons routinely provide survivorship care plans to PCPs; surgeons who received formal survivorship training were more likely to do so compared to those without such training (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.57, 6.92). Although only 20.4% of surgeons follow their patients beyond 5 years, individuals in practice longer were more likely to continue long-term follow-up than those with ≤ 10 years of experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest survey of surgeons regarding long-term management for early-stage colorectal cancer and highlights the potential for improved coordination with PCPs and increased implementation of survivorship care plans.