Integrating primary care providers through the seasons of survivorship

Primary care provider-led cancer survivorship care in the first 5 years following initial cancer treatment: a scoping review of the barriers and solutions to implementation

PURPOSE

To synthesize the barriers to primary care provider (PCP)-led cancer survivorship care (≤ 5 years after initial cancer treatment) experienced by healthcare systems around the world, and to explore potential solutions that would succeed within a developed country.

METHODS

A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and grey literature was conducted. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles prior to April 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven articles published across the globe (USA, Canada, Australia, European Union, and UK) met the review inclusion/exclusion criteria. The four most frequently discussed barriers to PCP-led survivorship care in healthcare systems were as follows: (1) insufficient communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, (2) limited PCP knowledge, (3) time restrictions for PCPs to provide comprehensive survivorship care, and (4) a lack of resources (e.g., survivorship care guidelines). Potential solutions to combat these barriers were as follows: (1) improving interdisciplinary communication, (2) bolstering PCP education, and (3) providing survivorship resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified and summarized key barriers and solutions to the provision of PCP-led cancer survivorship care. Importantly, the findings from this review provide insight and direction to guide optimization of cancer care practice within BC's healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Optimizing the PCP-led survivorship care model will be a valuable contribution to the field of cancer survivorship care and will hopefully lead to more widespread use of this model, ultimately lessening the growing demand for cancer-specific care by cancer specialists.

Exploring Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) in cancer survivors from a medical social work perspective: A qualitative study of medical social workers in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) in cancer survivors has been insufficiently addressed despite its imperativeness in cancer journey. Although several studies have investigated healthcare professionals' experience with FCR in cancer survivors, a medical social work perspective has rarely been reflected. This study aimed to explore Korean medical social workers' experience with intervening FCR in cancer survivors.

METHODS

Snowball sampling recruited 12 experienced medical social workers intervening with cancer survivors at tertiary or university cancer hospitals in South Korea. Individual and focus-group interviews (FGI) were conducted with the medical social workers. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using an inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Content analysis of the interviews extracted the following major themes regarding FCR in cancer survivors. First, when and how FCR among cancer survivors emerged at the early stage of medical social work interventions was identified. Second, how medical social workers dealt with FCR in cancer survivors was illustrated. Third, the responses of cancer survivors to medical social work interventions for FCR were assessed. Finally, the internal and external issues underlying the medical social work interventions for FCR among cancer survivors were revealed and discussed.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, this study suggested the implications on dealing with FCR in cancer survivors in the realm of medial social work profession. Furthermore, it expanded the discussion about FCR in cancer survivors from cancer hospitals to community.

What quantifies good primary care in the United States? A review of algorithms and metrics using real-world data

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play an indispensable role in providing comprehensive care and referring patients for specialty care and other medical services. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts patient access to care, understanding the quality of primary care is critical at this unprecedented moment to support patients with complex medical needs in the primary care setting and inform policymakers to redesign our primary care system. The traditional way of collecting information from patient surveys is time-consuming and costly, and novel data collection and analysis methods are needed. In this review paper, we describe the existing algorithms and metrics that use the real-world data to qualify and quantify primary care, including the identification of an individual's likely PCP (identification of plurality provider and major provider), assessment of process quality (for example, appropriate-care-model composite measures), and continuity and regularity of care index (including the interval index, variance index and relative variance index), and highlight the strength and limitation of real world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data in determining the quality of PCP care. The EHR audits facilitate assessing the quality of the workflow process and clinical appropriateness of primary care practices. With extensive and diverse records, administrative claims data can provide reliable information as it assesses primary care quality through coded information from different providers or networks. The use of EHRs and administrative claims data may be a cost-effective analytic strategy for evaluating the quality of primary care.

Chronic comorbid conditions among adult cancer survivors in the United States: Results from the National Health Interview Survey, 2002-2018

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors develop other chronic medical conditions because of shared risk factors and delayed effects of cancer treatment. This study investigated trends in the prevalence of chronic diseases and estimated their population sizes among adult cancer survivors in the United States from 2002 to 2018.

METHODS

Using 2002-2018 National Health Interview Survey data, this study calculated the age-sex-race/ethnicity-adjusted prevalences and estimated the population sizes for the following chronic conditions among cancer survivors: hypertension, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, hepatitis, arthritis, liver disease, kidney disease, and morbid obesity. This study also examined multiple chronic conditions (MCC; 3 or more health conditions). MCC trends were further examined by sociodemographic factors to identify high-risk populations. Parallel analyses were performed for participants without a cancer history to provide a reference.

RESULTS

Among 30,728 cancers survivors, increasing trends were observed in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, and morbid obesity, whereas decreasing prevalence trends were observed for ischemic heart disease, COPD, and hepatitis. Cancer survivors with MCC increased from 4.7 million in 2002 to 8.1 million in 2018 (the prevalence increased from 43.7% to 46.6%). The increase was more pronounced among survivors aged 18 to 44 years. Among adults without a cancer history, the MCC prevalence also increased, although more slowly than among survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of adult cancer survivors in the United States with comorbid illnesses has increased substantially over the past 2 decades. Optimal management of comorbid conditions and aggressive interventions for risk reduction may benefit the cancer survivor population.

Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Training on Rural Primary Care Practice Teams: a Mixed Methods Approach

With the increasing numbers of individuals surviving a diagnosis of cancer, an aging population, and more individuals experiencing multi-morbidity, primary care providers (PCPs) are seeing more patients with a history of cancer. Effective strategies are needed to adequately prepare the primary care workforce for the phase of cancer care now widely recognized as survivorship. A survivorship education program for rural primary care practices was developed using a community engagement process and delivered at the practice level by community health liaisons. A mixed method approach was used to evaluate the program impact which included a questionnaire and interviews. Descriptive analyses and generalized linear regression were used to evaluate quantitative outcomes from the questionnaires. Immersion crystallization was used to define themes from the qualitative components. Thirty-two (32) practices participated, averaging 10.3 team members/practice. The percent of correct responses to the knowledge questionnaire increased significantly, almost doubling between baseline and post-test (25% vs 46%, p < .001). Four major themes emerged from the interviews which included positive impact of the training, putting the training into practice, intention to change care delivery, contextual influences in survivorship care. Evidence from the cancer survivorship education program evaluation supports its value to key stakeholders and the potential wider dissemination of the iSurvive Program. These data also suggest the need for additional investigation into other ways beyond education that primary care practices can be supported to ensure the needs of the growing cancer survivor population in the US are met.

Provider Communication: The Key to Care Coordination Between Tribal Primary Care and Community Oncology Providers

PURPOSE

To explore tribal primary care providers' and community oncology providers' experiences of caring for individuals with cancer to inform intervention development and improve cancer care coordination in this high-need population.

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

33 tribal primary care providers and 22 nontribal, community-based oncology providers.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

A qualitative, descriptive design was used, and 55 semistructured individual interviews were completed. Data were analyzed using conventional inductive content analysis to identify major themes.

FINDINGS

Effective care coordination for individuals with cancer was characterized by timely communication. Providers in both settings identified unhindered communication between providers as a key element of care coordination. Identification of points of contact in each setting enhanced information exchange. As patient needs related to cancer care intensified, care coordination increased in complexity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Evaluating strategies to enhance communication between tribal primary care providers and community oncology providers is an important next step in enhancing the coordination of care for tribal individuals with cancer.

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.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey

Introduction

Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown.

Methods

We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role.

Results

Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01).

Conclusions

While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.

Outcomes of cancer survivorship education and training for primary care providers: a systematic review

Purpose

To identify published literature regarding cancer survivorship education programs for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess their outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2005 and September 2020. The Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation model were used to summarize program content and outcomes, respectively. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two authors.

Results

Twenty-one studies were included, describing self-directed online courses (n=4), presentations (n=2), workshops and training sessions (n=6), placement programs (n=3), a live webinar, a fellowship program, a referral program, a survivorship conference, a dual in-person workshop and webinar, and an in-person seminar and online webinar series. Eight studies described the use of a learner framework or theory to guide program development. All 21 programs were generally beneficial to PCP learners (e.g., increased confidence, knowledge, behavior change); however, methodological bias suggests caution in accepting claims. Three studies reported positive outcomes at the patient level (i.e., satisfaction with care) and organizational level (i.e., increased screening referrals, changes to institution practice standards).

Conclusions

A range of cancer survivorship PCP education programs exist. Evidence for clinical effectiveness was rarely reported. Future educational programs should be tailored to PCPs, utilize an evidence-based survivorship framework, and evaluate patient- and system-level outcomes.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

PCPs have an important role in addressing the diverse health care needs of cancer survivors. Improving the content, approach, and evaluation of PCP-focused cancer survivorship education programs could have a positive impact on health outcomes among cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01018-6.

Roles and recommendations from primary care physicians towards managing low-risk breast cancer survivors in a shared-care model with specialists in Singapore-a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is prevalent and has high cure rates. The resultant increase in numbers of breast cancer survivors (BCS) may overwhelm the current oncology workforce in years to come. We postulate that primary care physicians (PCPs) could play an expanded role in comanaging survivors, provided they are given the appropriate tools and training to do so.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of PCPs towards managing BCS in a community-based shared-care programme with oncologists.

METHODS

Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted with seventy PCPs recruited by purposive sampling. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded by three independent investigators. Thematic data analysis was performed and the coding process facilitated by NVivo 12.

RESULTS

Majority of PCPs reported currently limited roles in managing acute and non-cancer issues, optimizing comorbidities and preventive care. PCPs aspired to expand their role to include cancer surveillance, risk assessment and addressing unmet psychosocial needs. PCPs preferred to harmonize cancer survivorship management of their primary care patients who are also BCS, with defined role distinct from oncologists. Training to understand the care protocol, enhancement of communication skills, confidence and trust were deemed necessary. PCPs proposed selection criteria of BCS and adequacy of their medical information; increased consultation time; contact details and timely access to oncologists (if needed) in the shared-care programme.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs were willing to share the care of BCS with oncologists but recommended role definition, training, clinical protocol, resources and access to oncologist's consultation to optimize the programme implementation.

Radiotherapy side effects: integrating a survivorship clinical lens to better serve patients

The Canadian Cancer Society estimated that 220,400 new cases of cancer would be diagnosed in 2019. Of the affected patients, more than 60% will survive for 5 years or longer after their cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, nearly 40% will receive at least 1 course of radiotherapy (rt). Radiotherapy is used with both curative and palliative intent: to treat early-stage or locally advanced tumours (curative) and for symptom management in advanced disease (palliative). It can be delivered systemically (external-beam rt) or internally (brachytherapy). Although technique improvements have drastically reduced the occurrence of rt-related toxicity, most patients still experience burdensome rt side effects (seffs). Radiotherapy seffs are local or locoregional, and manifest in tissues or organs that were irradiated. Side effects manifesting within weeks after rt completion are termed "early seffs," and those occurring months or years after treatment are termed "late seffs." In addition to radiation oncologists, general practitioners in oncology and primary care providers are involved in survivorship care and management of rt seffs. Here, we present an overview of common seffs and their respective management: anxiety, depression, fatigue, and effects related to the head-and-neck, thoracic, and pelvic treatment sites.

Changes in primary care provider utilization by phase of care for women diagnosed with breast cancer: a CanIMPACT longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) have always played an important role in cancer diagnosis. There is increasing awareness of the importance of their role during treatment and survivorship. We examined changes in PCP utilization from pre-diagnosis to survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer, factors associated with being a high user of primary care, and variation across four Canadian provinces.

METHODS

The cohorts included women 18+ years of age diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer in years 2007-2012 in British Columbia (BC), Manitoba (MB), Ontario (ON), and Nova Scotia (NS) who had surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and were alive 30+ months after diagnosis (N = 19,589). We compared the rate of PCP visits in each province across phases of care (pre-diagnosis, diagnosis, treatment, and survival years 1 to 4).

RESULTS

PCP use was greatest during treatment and decreased with each successive survival year in all provinces. The unadjusted difference in PCP use between treatment and pre-diagnosis was most pronounced in BC where PCP use was six times higher during treatment than pre-diagnosis. Factors associated with being a high user of primary care during treatment included comorbidity and being a high user of care pre-diagnosis in all provinces. These factors were also associated with being a higher user of care during diagnosis and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the traditional view that PCPs focus primarily on cancer prevention and early detection, we found that PCPs are involved in the care of women diagnosed with breast cancer across all phases of care.