Dataset Information

Optimizing cancer survivorship in primary care: patient experiences from the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors clinic.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The optimal delivery of survivorship care, particularly within primary care, remains poorly understood. We established the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) clinic in 2015 to address care challenges unique to cancer survivors. To better understand the care from the PCCS clinic, we interviewed patients about their perception of care delivery, survivorship care, and care coordination.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with adult survivors of any cancer type seen in the PCCS clinic. A priori and in vivo coding of verbatim transcripts was part of the thematic analysis.

Results

Seventeen cancer survivors were interviewed (ages 37-78). Themes that emerged were (1) optimal care and (2) the PCCS experience. Subthemes respectively included the ideal role of the primary care provider (1), telehealth/COVID-19 challenges and opportunities (1), patient-derived value from the PCCS clinic (2), and improving the PCCS model (2). Overall, PCCS patients expected and experienced high-quality, comprehensive primary care by providers with cancer survivorship expertise. Patients reported telehealth benefits and challenges for survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

PCCS patients perceived receiving high-quality primary care and valued being seen in a primary care-based survivorship clinic. The PCCS clinic can serve as a model of primary care-based cancer survivorship.

Implications for cancer survivors

Ideal primary care provider roles and care coordination are important factors for high-quality survivorship care and can be provided by a specialized cancer survivorship clinic in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Choi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8756404 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months (95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43%(95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.

Project description:BackgroundWith more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.ResultsOverall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.ConclusionsGPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Project description:PurposeThe use of radiation therapy (RT) in consolidating oligometastatic prostate cancer (OPCa) is a rapidly evolving treatment paradigm. We review our institutional experience using metastasis-directed therapy in the definitive management of men with OPCa.Methods and materialsPatients with OPCa treated with definitive RT were included. The Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed to assess biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and time to next intervention. Cumulative incidence functions were used to calculate rates of local failure. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4).ResultsThis study analyzed 156 patients with OPCa and 354 metastatic lesions with median follow-up of 24.6 months. Of 150 patients with toxicity data, 53 (35%) experienced acute grade 1 toxicity, 8 (5%) had grade 2, and none had grade 3 toxicity. Only 13 patients (9%) had late toxicities. At 24 months, the cumulative incidence of local failure was 7.4%. Median bPFS for the entire cohort was 12.9 months and 52% at 1 year. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with prolonged bPFS were peri-RT androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), lower gross tumor volume, and hormone-sensitive (HS) OPCa. Median time to next intervention, including repeat RT, was 21.6 months. Median bPFS for men with HS prostate cancer was 17.2 months compared with 7.2 months in men with castrate-resistant OPCa (P < .0001), and cumulative incidence of local failure at 24 months was lower with HS OPCa (4.8% vs 12.1%; P = .034). We analyzed 28 men with HS OPCa treated with a course of peri-RT ADT (median, 4.3 months) with recovery of testosterone. At a median follow-up of 33.5 months, 20 patients had not developed bPFS, median bPFS had not been reached, and 24-month bPFS was 77%.ConclusionsMetastasis-directed therapy can be effective across a wide range of OPCa subtypes, but with differential efficacy. Further study is warranted to investigate the use of RT across the wide range of patients with OPCa.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore how cancer survivors have experienced their contacts with primary care after being diagnosed with cancer, focusing on the integration between cancer specialist and primary care, and participants' views on what could make primary care services better at catering to the needs of cancer survivors.DesignA qualitative study in which data was collected through semi-structured digital focus group interviews and analyzed using a template analysis approach.Setting and subjectsAdult residents of Skåne, Sweden, who had been diagnosed with and initiated treatment for either of five common cancer forms, recruited through patient advocacy groups.Main outcome measuresA qualitative description of participants' experiences and perceptions as expressed in focus group interview data.ResultsMost participants felt that primary care services had not played a significant role for them, despite patterns of both increased and unmet health needs. Insufficient coordination and communication with specialist cancer care, low availability, lacking personal continuity, low cancer competence and lacking commitment to cancer-related needs were presented as barriers to satisfactory primary care. A strengthened bond between cancer and primary care services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were all suggested as measures to make primary care more suitable to cancer survivors' needs.ConclusionThe study suggests that cancer survivors experience a range of issues that hinders primary care services from playing a productive role in the cancer care process. The results speak for a need for interventions to remove barriers to satisfactory primary care contacts in this group of patients.KEY POINTSThe growing number of cancer survivors highlights the role of primary care services in the cancer care continuum.Despite the presence of unmet needs, few cancer survivors felt that primary care services had been significant to their care.Survivors identified a number of barriers to satisfactory primary care, including lacking coordination and communication between cancer and primary care.Strengthened links between healthcare services, privileged access, and holistic perspectives were suggested to improve primary care delivery for cancer survivors.

Project description:ImportanceThe Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership was created to improve care coordination across the continuum in East Baltimore, Maryland.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was associated with improved outcomes and lower spending.Design, setting, and participantsNonrandomized acute care intervention (ACI) and community intervention (CI) Medicare and Medicaid participants were analyzed in a quality improvement study using difference-in-differences designs with propensity score-weighted and matched comparison groups. The study spanned 2012 to 2016 and took place in acute care hospitals, primary care clinics, skilled nursing facilities, and community-based organizations. The ACI analysis compared outcomes of participants in Medicare and Medicaid during their 90-day postacute episode with those of a propensity score-weighted preintervention group at Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership hospitals and a concurrent comparison group drawn from similar Maryland hospitals. The CI analysis compared changes in outcomes of Medicare and Medicaid participants with those of a propensity score-matched comparison group of local residents.InterventionsThe ACI bundle aimed to improve transition planning following discharge. The CI included enhanced care coordination and integrated behavioral support from local primary care sites in collaboration with community-based organizations.Main outcomes and measuresUtilization measures of hospital admissions, 30-day readmissions, and emergency department visits; quality of care measures of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, practitioner follow-up visits; and total cost of care (TCOC) for Medicare and Medicaid participants.ResultsThe CI group had 2154 Medicare beneficiaries (1320 [61.3%] female; mean age, 69.3 years) and 2532 Medicaid beneficiaries (1483 [67.3%] female; mean age, 55.1 years). For the CI group's Medicaid participants, aggregate TCOC reduction was $24.4 million, and reductions of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, 30-day readmissions, and avoidable hospitalizations were 33, 51, 36, and 7 per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. The ACI group had 26 144 beneficiary-episodes for Medicare (13 726 [52.5%] female patients; mean patient age, 68.4 years) and 13 921 beneficiary-episodes for Medicaid (7392 [53.1%] female patients; mean patient age, 52.2 years). For the ACI group's Medicare participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $29.2 million with increases in 90-day hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions of 11 and 14 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes, respectively, and reduction in practitioner follow-up visits of 41 and 29 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. For the ACI group's Medicaid participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $59.8 million and the 90-day emergency department visit rate decreased by 133 per 1000 episodes, but hospitalizations increased by 49 per 1000 episodes and practitioner follow-up visits decreased by 70 and 182 per 1000 episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. In total, the CI and ACI were associated with $113.3 million in cost savings.Conclusions and relevanceA care coordination model consisting of complementary bundled interventions in an urban academic environment was associated with lower spending and improved health outcomes.