Availability of patient-centered cancer support services: A statewide survey of cancer centers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cartmell KB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5870953 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThis study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade.MethodsBetween April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82-question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders.ResultsThe overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01).ConclusionsDespite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs.
| S-EPMC7160033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out.ObjectiveTo examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience.DesignThis is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples.ParticipantsResponses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively).Main measuresThe Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015.Key resultsMiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance.ConclusionsPCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system.
| S-EPMC5653555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent literature, patient portals are considered as important tools for the delivery of patient-centered care. To date, it is not clear how patients would conceptualize a patient portal and which health information needs they have when doing so. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed (1) to investigate health information needs, expectations, and attitudes toward a patient portal and (2) to assess whether determinants, such as patient characteristics, health literacy, and empowerment status, can predict two different variables, namely the importance people attribute to obtaining health information when using a patient portal and the expectations concerning personal health care when using a patient portal. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the Flemish population on what patients prefer to know about their digital health data and their expectations and attitudes toward using a patient portal to access their electronic health record. People were invited to participate in the survey through newsletters, social media, and magazines. We used a questionnaire including demographics, health characteristics, health literacy, patient empowerment, and patient portal characteristics. RESULTS:We received 433 completed surveys. The health information needs included features such as being notified when one's health changes (371/396, 93.7%), being notified when physical parameters increase to dangerous levels (370/395, 93.7%), observing connections between one's symptoms or diseases or biological parameters (339/398, 85.2%), viewing the evolution of one's health in function of time (333/394, 84.5%), and viewing information about the expected effect of treatment (349/395, 88.4%). Almost 90% (369/412) of respondents were interested in using a patient portal. Determinants of patients' attachment for obtaining health information on a patient portal were (1) age between 45 and 54 years (P=.05); (2) neutral (P=.03) or interested attitude (P=.008) toward shared decision making; and (3) commitment to question physicians' decisions (P=.03, R2=0.122). Determinants of patients' expectations on improved health care by accessing a patient portal were (1) lower education level (P=.04); (2) neutral (P=.03) or interested attitude (P=.008) toward shared decision making; and (3) problems in understanding health information (P=.04; R2=0.106). CONCLUSIONS:The interest in using a patient portal is considerable in Flanders. People would like to receive alerts or some form of communication from a patient portal in case they need to act to manage their health. Determinants such as education, attached importance to shared decision making, difficulties in finding relevant health information, and the attached importance in questioning the decisions of physicians need to be considered in the design of a patient portal.
| S-EPMC6231862 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionMany Emergency Departments (ED) publish wait times; however, the patient perspective in what information is requested and the quantity of information to post is limited.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study at a tertiary care academic center. First, we conducted focus groups of 7 patients. We then generated themes following content analysis to create a patient survey. We administered in-person surveys to patients in ED waiting rooms at sites randomized for survey administration. We used preassigned shifts utilized for even patient perspective representation of the 24 hours-a-day/7 days-a-week service. We included waiting room patients over 18 years of age and excluded patients directly referred to a specialty service or who did not speak French or English. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics.ResultsWe identified nine dominant focus group themes: wait time definition, wait time notification, communication, education, patient expectations, utilization of the ED, patient behaviour, physical comfort, and patient empowerment. Of the 240 patient questionnaires administered, 81.3% of respondents wanted to know ED wait times before hospital arrival hospital and 90.8% wanted ED wait times posted in the waiting room. Website (46.7%) was the most popular choice for publishing wait times outside the ED. Within the ED, patients had no preference regarding display modality, if times were displayed (39.6%). Overall, 76.7% stated that their satisfaction with the ED would be improved if wait times were posted.ConclusionED patients strongly supported having access to wait time information. Patients believed having wait time information will have a positive impact on their overall ED satisfaction.
| S-EPMC8084678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare accessibility and utilization are important social determinants of health. Lack of access to healthcare, including missed or no-show appointments, can have negative health effects and be costly to patients and providers. Various office-based approaches and community partnerships can address patient access barriers.Objectives(1) To understand provider perceptions of patient barriers; (2) to describe the policies and practices used to address late or missed appointments, and (3) to evaluate access to patient support services, both in-clinic and with community partners.MethodsMailed cross-sectional survey with online response option, sent to all Nebraska primary care clinics (n = 577) conducted April 2020 and January through April 2021. Chi-square tests compared rural-urban differences; logistic regression of clinical factors associated with policies and support services computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsResponse rate was 20.3% (n = 117), with 49 returns in 2020. Perceived patient barriers included finances, higher among rural versus urban clinics (81.6% vs. 56.1%, p =.009), and time (overall 52.3%). Welcoming environment (95.5%), telephone appointment reminders (74.8%) and streamlined admissions (69.4%) were the top three clinic practices to reduce missed appointments. Telehealth was the most commonly available patient support service in rural (79.6%) and urban (81.8%, p =.90) clinics. Number of providers was positively associated with having a patient navigator/care coordinator (OR = 1.20, CI = 1.02-1.40). For each percent increase in the number of privately insured patients, the odds of providing legal aid decreased by 4% (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.92-1.00). Urban clinics were less likely than rural clinics to provide social work services (OR = 0.16, CI = 0.04-0.67) or assist with applications for government aid (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.06-0.90).ConclusionsPractices to reduce missed appointments included a variety of reminders. Although finances and inability to take time off work were the most frequently reported perceived barriers for patients' access to timely healthcare, most clinics did not directly address them. Rural clinics appeared to have more community partnerships to address underlying social determinants of health, such as transportation and assistance applying for government aid. Taking such a wholistic partnership approach is an area for future study to improve patient access.
| S-EPMC10916250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:America's community health centers (HCs) are uniquely poised to implement the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, as they are effective in providing comprehensive, accessible, and continuous primary care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between PCMH recognition in HCs and clinical performance.Data for this study came from the 2012 Uniform Data System (UDS) as well as a survey of HCs' PCMH recognition achievement. The dependent variables included all 16 measures of clinical performance collected through UDS. Control measures included HC patient, provider, and practice characteristics. Bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to compare clinical performance between HCs with and without PCMH recognition.Health centers that receive PCMH recognition generally performed better on clinical measures than HCs without PCMH recognition. After controlling for HC patient, provider, and practice characteristics, HCs with PCMH recognition reported significantly better performance on asthma-related pharmacologic therapy, diabetes control, pap testing, prenatal care, and tobacco cessation intervention.This study establishes a positive association between PCMH recognition and clinical performance in HCs. If borne out in future longitudinal studies, policy makers and practices should advance the PCMH model as a strategy to further enhance the quality of primary care.
| S-EPMC5441497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFamily caregivers provide the majority of health care to the 18 million patients with cancer in the US. Yet despite providing complex medical and nursing care, a large proportion of caregivers report no formal support or training. In recognition of this gap, many interventions to support cancer caregivers have been developed and tested over the past 2 decades. However, there are few system-level data on whether US cancer centers have adopted and implemented these interventions.ObjectiveTo describe and characterize the availability of family caregiver support programs in US cancer centers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional national survey study was conducted between September 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023. Participants comprised clinical and administrative staff of Commission on Cancer-accredited US cancer centers. Data analysis was performed in May and June 2023.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey questions about the availability of 11 types of family caregiver programs (eg, peer mentoring, education classes, and psychosocial programs) were developed after literature review, assessment of similar program evaluation surveys, and discussions among a 13-member national expert advisory committee. Family caregiver programs were defined as structured, planned, and coordinated groups of activities and procedures aimed at specifically supporting family caregivers as part of usual care. Survey responses were tabulated using standard descriptive statistics, including means, proportions, and frequencies.ResultsOf the surveys sent to potential respondents at 971 adult cancer centers, 238 were completed (response rate, 24.5%). After nonresponse weight adjustment, most cancer centers (75.4%) had at least 1 family caregiver program; 24.6% had none. The most common program type was information and referral services (53.6%). Cancer centers with no programs were more likely to have smaller annual outpatient volumes (χ2 = 11.10; P = .011). Few centers had caregiver programs on training in medical and/or nursing tasks (21.7%), caregiver self-care (20.2%), caregiver-specific distress screening (19.3%), peer mentoring (18.9%), and children caregiving for parents (8.3%). Very few programs were developed from published evidence in a journal (8.1%). The top reason why cancer centers selected their programs was community members requesting the program (26.3%); only 12.3% of centers selected their programs based on scientific evidence. Most programs were funded by the cancer center or hospital (58.6%) or by philanthropy (42.4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, most cancer centers had family caregiver programs; however, a quarter had none. Furthermore, the scope of programming was limited and rarely evidence based, with few centers offering caregiving education and training. These findings suggest that implementation strategies are critically needed to foster uptake of evidence-based caregiver interventions.
| S-EPMC10568368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to delayed medical care in the United States. We examined changes in patterns of cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment between January 1 and December 31 in 2020 and 2019 with real-time electronic pathology report data from population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries from Georgia and Louisiana. During 2020, there were 29 905 fewer pathology reports than in 2019, representing a 10.2% decline. Declines were observed in all age groups, including children and adolescents younger than 18 years. The nadir was early April 2020, with 42.8% fewer reports than in April 2019. Numbers of reports through December 2020 never consistently exceeded those in 2019 after first declines. Patterns were similar by age group and cancer site. Findings suggest substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment services for cancers during the pandemic. Ongoing evaluation can inform public health efforts to minimize any lasting adverse effects of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis, stage, treatment, and survival.
| S-EPMC9194624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe patient centered medical home has received considerable attention as a potential way to improve primary care quality and limit cost growth. Little information exists that systematically compares PCMH pilot projects across the country.DesignCross-sectional key-informant interviews.ParticipantsLeaders from existing PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform.MeasurementsWe used a semi-structured interview tool with the following domains: project history, organization and participants, practice requirements and selection process, medical home recognition, payment structure, practice transformation, and evaluation design.ResultsA total of 26 demonstrations in 18 states were interviewed. Current demonstrations include over 14,000 physicians caring for nearly 5 million patients. A majority of demonstrations are single payer, and most utilize a three component payment model (traditional fee for service, per person per month fixed payments, and bonus performance payments). The median incremental revenue per physician per year was $22,834 (range $720 to $91,146). Two major practice transformation models were identified--consultative and implementation of the chronic care model. A majority of demonstrations did not have well-developed evaluation plans.ConclusionCurrent PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform include large numbers of patients and physicians as well as a wide spectrum of implementation models. Key questions exist around the adequacy of current payment mechanisms and evaluation plans as public and policy interest in the PCMH model grows.
| S-EPMC2869409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis nationwide survey studied the level of palliative care (PC) access for Chinese patients with cancer among cancer care providers either in tertiary general hospitals or cancer hospitals in China.MethodsUsing a probability-proportionate-to-size method, we identified local tertiary general hospitals with oncology departments to match cancer hospitals at the same geographic area. A PC program leader or a designee at each hospital reported available PC services, including staffing, inpatient and outpatient services, education, and research, with most questions adapted from a previous national survey on PC. The primary outcome was availability of a PC service.ResultsMost responders reported that some type of PC service (possibly called "comprehensive cancer care," "pain and symptom management," or "supportive care") was available at their institution (84.3% of tertiary general hospitals, 82.8% of cancer hospitals). However, cancer hospitals were significantly more likely than tertiary general hospitals to have a PC department or specialist (34.1% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001). The most popular services were pain consultation (> 92%), symptom management (> 77%), comprehensive care plans (~ 60%), obtaining advanced directives and do-not-resuscitate orders (~ 45%), referrals to hospice (> 32%), and psychiatric assessment (> 25%). Cancer hospitals were also more likely than tertiary general hospitals to report having inpatient beds for PC (46.3% vs. 30.5%; p = 0.010), outpatient PC clinics (28.0% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.029), educational programs (18.2% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.014), and research programs (17.2% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsCancer hospitals are more likely to offer PC than are tertiary general hospitals in China. Our findings highlight opportunities to further increase the PC capacity in Chinese hospitals.
| S-EPMC10536755 | biostudies-literature