Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States

Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

This scoping review identifies and characterises reported barriers and facilitators to providing integrated cancer care reported in the international literature, and develops recommendations for clinical practice.

METHODS

This scoping review included literature published between 2009 and 2022 and describes the delivery of integrated cancer care between primary and secondary care sectors. Searches were conducted of an online database Ovid Medline and grey literature.

RESULTS

The review included thirty-two papers. Barriers and facilitators to integrated cancer care were identified in three core areas: (1) at an individual user level around patient-healthcare professional interactions, (2) at an organisational level, and (3) at a healthcare system level. The review findings identified a need for further training for primary care professionals on cancer care, clarity in the delineation of primary care and oncologist roles (i.e. who does what), effective communication and engagement between primary and secondary care, and the provision of protocols and guidelines for follow-up care in cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Information sharing and communication between primary and secondary care must improve to meet the increasing demand for support for people living with and beyond cancer. Delivering integrated pathways between primary and secondary care will yield improvements in patient outcomes and health economic costs.

Importance of primary care for underserved cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions

PURPOSE

To understand the impact of pre-existing conditions on healthcare utilization among under- and uninsured patients in the transition from cancer treatment to post-treatment survivorship.

METHODS

Using electronic health record data, we constructed a cohort of patients seen in an integrated county health system between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2016. Six hundred thirty-one adult patients diagnosed with non-metastatic breast or colorectal cancer during this period (cases) were matched 1:1 on sex and Charlson comorbidity index to non-cancer patients who had at least two chronic conditions and with at least one visit to the health system during the study period (controls). Conditional fixed effects Poisson regression models compared number of primary care and emergency department (ED) visits and completed [vs. no show or missed] appointments between cancer and non-cancer patients.

RESULTS

Cancer patients had significantly lower number of visits compared with non-cancer patients (N = 46,965 vs. 85,038). Cancer patients were less likely to have primary care (IRR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.27) and ED visits (IRR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.64) but more likely to complete a scheduled appointment (AOR = 4.83; 95% CI: 4.32, 5.39) compared with non-cancer patients. Cancer patients seen in primary care at a higher rate were more likely to visit the ED (IRR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.80) than those seen in primary care at a lower rate.

CONCLUSION

Health systems need to find innovative, effective solutions to increase primary care utilization among cancer patients with chronic care conditions to ensure optimal management of both chronic conditions and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Maintaining regular connections with primary care providers during active cancer treatment should be promoted.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

Purpose:

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

Methods:

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders’ perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

Results:

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

Conclusion:

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

What Survivorship Means to Liver Transplant Recipients: Qualitative Groundwork for a Survivorship Conceptual Model

Survivorship is a well-established concept in the cancer care continuum with a focus on disease recurrence, quality of life, and the minimization of competing risks for mortality; however, survivorship has not been well studied in liver transplantation (LT). We investigated what survivorship means to LT patients and identified motivations and coping strategies for overcoming challenges after LT. A total of 20 in-depth home interviews were conducted among adults 3 to 6 months after LT. Interviews were conducted by trained qualitative research experts and coded and analyzed using an inductive approach. A majority of LT recipients (75%) identified themselves as survivors. Integral to the definition of survivorship was overcoming hardship (including experiences on the waiting list) and the unique experience of being given a "second chance" at life. Motivations to survive included a new chance at life (55%), family (40%), spirituality/faith (30%), and fear of rejection (15%). LT recipients and caregivers identified multiple strategies to cope with post-LT challenges, including relying on a large network of community, spiritual, and virtual support. These findings informed a conceptual model of LT survivorship based on socioecological theory, which identified the following variables influencing survivorship: (1) pretransplant experiences, (2) individual attributes and challenges, (3) interpersonal relationships with caregivers and other social support, (4) community relationships, and (5) large-scale factors including neighborhood and financial issues. LT recipients identified themselves as survivors, and post-LT identities were greatly influenced by pre-LT experiences. These perspectives informed an in-depth conceptual model of survivorship after transplantation. We identified sources of motivation and coping strategies used in LT recovery that could be targets of survivorship interventions aimed at improving post-LT outcomes.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Follow-up surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors of different sexual orientations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance.

METHODS

An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test.

RESULTS

About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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