1
|
Salz T, McCabe MS, Oeffinger KC, Corcoran S, Vickers AJ, Salner AL, Dornelas E, Schnall R, Raghunathan NJ, Fortier E, Baxi SS. A head and neck cancer intervention for use in survivorship clinics: a protocol for a feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016; 2:23. [PMID: 27965842 PMCID: PMC5153865 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-016-0061-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/19/2016] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Head and neck cancer survivors commonly experience severe long-term toxicities, late-occurring symptoms, and significant risks of the second primary malignancy and comorbid illnesses. With multiple simultaneous health issues, these complex cancer survivors often do not receive comprehensive health care that addresses their needs. A tool is needed to streamline and standardize comprehensive care for this cohort. METHODS/DESIGN We designed the Head and Neck Survivorship Tool: Assessment and Recommendations (HN-STAR) to address health care challenges for head and neck cancer survivors. HN-STAR is an electronic platform that aims to simplify the provision of personalized care in cancer survivorship clinics. It uses an algorithmic approach to integrate patient-reported outcomes, clinical details, and evidence-based guidelines to standardize comprehensive care provided in routine survivorship visits. It has four integrated components: (1) a simplified treatment summary, which pulls treatment details from a clinical database or can be completed manually using a streamlined form; (2) an online self-assessment for patients to report their own symptoms; (3) an interactive discussion guide presenting all relevant information to the provider during the clinic visit; and (4) a survivorship care plan generated at the end of each visit that reflects decisions made during the visit. By using a modifiable electronic platform, HN-STAR provides a method for incorporating survivorship care plans into clinical practice and for disseminating evidence on symptom management and preventive care. This is a study to assess the feasibility of a future multi-site, randomized clinical trial of HN-STAR. We will enroll head and neck cancer survivors who are followed in one of two nurse practitioner-led survivorship clinics. We will implement HN-STAR for one routine survivorship visits. We will assess (1) usability and feasibility outcomes of HN-STAR from the perspective of key stakeholders and (2) the planned outcomes intended for the larger trial. We will collect usability and feasibility data from online surveys of survivors and their providers. Our findings will inform whether it is feasible to advance HN-STAR to trial. If so, we will adapt HN-STAR and the study design of the trial in response to feedback from survivors and providers. The long-term goal is to determine if such an intervention will lead to improved and simplified comprehensive survivorship care. DISCUSSION This feasibility study will evaluate implementation of HN-STAR into clinical practice in terms of usability, practicality, and clinical flow in two distinct clinical settings. This study will also provide critical baseline data to characterize this vulnerable population. Findings from this study will inform a multicenter randomized trial of HN-STAR, aimed at standardizing and streamlining the delivery of evidence-guided comprehensive care for head and neck cancer survivors. Ultimately, if found effective, the modular structure of HN-STAR could permit its expansion to survivors of other complex cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571673.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talya Salz
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Mary S. McCabe
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Kevin C. Oeffinger
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Stacie Corcoran
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Andrew J. Vickers
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | | | - Ellen Dornelas
- Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour St, Hartford, CT 06102 USA
| | - Rebecca Schnall
- Columbia University School of Nursing, 617 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | | | - Elizabeth Fortier
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Shrujal S. Baxi
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
O’Brien M, Grunfeld E, Sussman J, Porter G, Mobilio MH. Views of family physicians about survivorship care plans to provide breast cancer follow-up care: exploration of results from a randomized controlled trial. Curr Oncol 2015; 22:252-9. [PMID: 26300663 PMCID: PMC4530810 DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans, but evaluations to date have found little evidence of the effectiveness of such plans. We conducted a qualitative follow-on study to a randomized controlled trial (rct) to understand the experiences of family physicians using survivorship care plans to support the follow-up of breast cancer patients. METHODS A subset of family physicians whose patients were enrolled in the parent rct in Ontario and Nova Scotia were eligible for this study. In interviews, the physicians discussed survivorship care plans (intervention) or usual discharge letters (control), and their confidence in providing follow-up cancer care. RESULTS Of 123 eligible family physicians, 18 (10 intervention, 8 control) were interviewed. In general, physicians receiving a survivorship care plan found only the 1-page care record to be useful. Physicians who received only a discharge letter had variable views about the letter's usefulness; several indicated that it lacked information about potential cancer- or treatment-related problems. Most physicians were comfortable providing care 3-5 years after diagnosis, but desired timely and informative communication with oncologists. CONCLUSIONS Although family physicians did not find extensive survivorship care plans useful, discharge letters might not be sufficiently comprehensive for follow-up breast cancer care. Effective strategies for two-way communication between family physicians and oncologists are still lacking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M.A. O’Brien
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
| | - E. Grunfeld
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research; and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
| | - J. Sussman
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, and Juravinski Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON
| | - G. Porter
- Division of General Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Salz T, Baxi SS, Blinder VS, Elkin EB, Kemeny MM, McCabe MS, Moskowitz CS, Onstad EE, Saltz LB, Temple LKF, Oeffinger KC. Colorectal cancer survivors' needs and preferences for survivorship information. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10:e277-82. [PMID: 24893610 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Before developing a survivorship care plan (SCP) that colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors will value, understanding the informational needs of CRC survivors is critical. METHODS We surveyed survivors treated for nonmetastatic CRC at two hospitals in New York about their needs and preferences for survivorship information. Participants completed treatment 6 to 24 months before the interview and had not received an SCP. We evaluated whether survivors knew their treatment history (10 topics), whether they understood ongoing risks (four topics), and their preferences for receiving 16 topics of survivorship information. RESULTS One hundred seventy-five survivors completed the survey. Most survivors remembered information about past treatment (98% to 99% for each treatment). Fewer survivors knew their risks of local recurrence, distant recurrence, or developing a new CRC (69%, 77%, and 40%, respectively). Most participants reported receiving information about their cancer history and ongoing oncology visits (77% to 86% across topics). Across all topics, 93% to 99% of those who reported receiving information found the information useful. A minority of survivors reported they received information about symptoms to report to doctors, returning to work, or financial or legal issues (5% to 48% across topics), but those who did found the information useful (89% to 100% across topics). CONCLUSIONS In the absence of an SCP, CRC survivors still generally understood their cancer history. However, many lacked knowledge of ongoing risks and prevention. Most survivors stated that they found the survivorship information they received useful. SCPs for CRC survivors should focus less on past care and more on helping survivors understand their risks and plan for the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talya Salz
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Shrujal S Baxi
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Victoria S Blinder
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Elena B Elkin
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Margaret M Kemeny
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Mary S McCabe
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Chaya S Moskowitz
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Erin E Onstad
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Leonard B Saltz
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Larissa K F Temple
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - Kevin C Oeffinger
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Queens Cancer Center of Queens Hospital, New York, NY; and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tevaarwerk AJ, Wisinski KB, Buhr KA, Njiaju UO, Tun M, Donohue S, Sekhon N, Yen T, Wiegmann DA, Sesto ME. Leveraging electronic health record systems to create and provide electronic cancer survivorship care plans: a pilot study. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10:e150-9. [PMID: 24520142 PMCID: PMC4018457 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends cancer survivors receive survivorship care plans after completing active cancer treatment. However, care plan creation requires significant time and effort, contributing to diminished adoption of this recommendation. Electronic health record (EHR) systems have been proposed as a solution. We assessed the feasibility of creating and delivering care plans within an EHR system. METHODS Thirty-eight breast cancer survivors without existing care plans were recruited during a follow-up visit to their primary oncologist. Using an EHR template, an oncologist created an individualized care plan for each participant. Time spent creating each plan was recorded. Participant use and feedback were collected. RESULTS Participants enrolled a median of 19.7 months after diagnosis (range, 4.3 to 57 months). A minority of IOM-recommended plan elements could be automatically imported without any manual entry. The majority of elements required interpretation and manual import by the clinician. However, with an established infrastructure for importing elements, the time needed to create a care plan electronically was short (median, 3 minutes; range 2 to 12 minutes). Most survivors (n = 36; 95%) successfully accessed their care plans online and spent a median of 12 minutes (range, 0.5 to 61.9 minutes) reviewing them. Survivors perceived the plans as useful and did not generally report difficulty in accessing them online or understanding content. CONCLUSION Rapid care plan creation and delivery within an EHR is possible. Plans were available to all (survivors, oncologists, primary care physicians) via the EHR. Further research is required to explore the barriers to automating data importation into plans as well as the impact of EHR-integrated plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - May Tun
- University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Salz T, McCabe MS, Onstad EE, Baxi SS, Deming RL, Franco RA, Glenn LA, Harper GR, Jumonville AJ, Payne RM, Peters EA, Salner AL, Schallenkamp JM, Williams SR, Yiee K, Oeffinger KC. Survivorship care plans: is there buy-in from community oncology providers? Cancer 2013; 120:722-30. [PMID: 24327371 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28472] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2013] [Revised: 08/16/2013] [Accepted: 09/13/2013] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Institute of Medicine recommended that survivors of cancer and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited. METHODS Oncology providers at 14 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals completed a survey regarding their perceptions of SCPs, including barriers to implementation, strategies for implementation, the role of oncology providers, and the importance of topics in SCPs (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, and the aspects of ongoing care that the oncology practice will provide). RESULTS Among 245 providers (response rate of 70%), 52% reported ever providing any component of an SCP to patients. The most widely reported barriers were lack of personnel and time to create SCPs (69% and 64% of respondents, respectively). The most widely endorsed strategy among those using SCPs was the use of a template with prespecified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, although 87% to 89% of oncology providers believed it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58% to 65% of respondents believed it was very important for patients to receive the information. Furthermore, 33% to 38% of respondents reported mixed feelings regarding whether it was the responsibility of oncology providers to provide SCPs. CONCLUSIONS Practices need additional resources to overcome barriers to implementing SCPs. We found resistance toward SCPs, particularly the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP dissemination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talya Salz
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ganz PA. Quality of care and cancer survivorship: the challenge of implementing the institute of medicine recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 5:101-5. [PMID: 20856744 DOI: 10.1200/jop.0934402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/17/2009] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
As the population ages, maintaining the quality of care for new patients with cancer will be challenged by an anticipated shortage of health professionals to care for the increased number of newly diagnosed and surviving patients with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A Ganz
- University of California, Los Angeles, Schools of Medicine and Public Health; and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Partridge AH, Norris VW, Blinder VS, Cutter BA, Halpern MT, Malin J, Neuss MN, Wolff AC. Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: a pilot program. Cancer 2012. [PMID: 23197186 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a need to better measure and improve the quality of oncology care and improve communication with patients and other providers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of prospective data collection for quality assessment in daily clinical practice. Data were used to create and share treatment plans/summaries (TPSs) at the point of care. METHODS Using a web-based tool, 20 diverse practices entered clinical data on each new early-stage breast cancer patient into the BCR for 14 months (September 2009 through November 2010). The tool created individual TPSs that were shared with patients. Practices received practice-specific and aggregate BCR quality measures data, participated in a survey, and received a participation stipend. RESULTS Twenty practices entered 2014 patients into the BCR, collecting demographic, clinical, and treatment information. Fifty-two percent of practice participants replied to an end-of-pilot survey: 73% were satisfied with the BCR and web-based tool, 31% expressed concern regarding time and effort, and 52% reported additional practice costs during the pilot. Among those who created or shared the TPSs, 90% thought the documents improved oncologist-patient communication, and 95% favored using BCR data for practice quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS Prospective data collection for quality assessment is feasible and allows sharing of TPSs with patients at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on decreasing implementation burden to practices, broadening participation, examining costs, and, most importantly, assessing its effects on patient outcomes.
Collapse
|
8
|
Blinder VS, Norris VW, Peacock NW, Griggs JJ, Harrington DP, Moore A, Theriault RL, Partridge AH. Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment plan and summary documents in community oncology care. Cancer 2012. [DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
9
|
Abstract
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talya Salz
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talya Salz
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|