bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Primary care physician continuity and end-of-life care intensity among Medicare cancer decedents.
Authors: Wang Shi-Yi , Cramer Laura D. , Pollack Craig Evan , Gross Cary Philip 
Published: March 2017

38 Background: While continuity with one’s primary care physician (PCP) care may be expected to reduce the intensity of end-of-life care, evidence to date has been inconclusive. Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database, we identified 63,269 decedents who were diagnosed with cancer during the years 2004-2011, had at least 4 PCP visits within the year prior to cancer diagnosis, and died within 6-36 months of diagnosis. Care continuity was defined as having at least one outpatient visit within 6 months of cancer diagnosis by the PCP who saw the patient most frequently in the year before cancer diagnosis. Measures of intensive end-of-life care included chemotherapy received within 14 days of death, > 1 emergency department (ED) visit, > 1 hospitalization, ≥ 1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission or no hospice enrollment within 30 days of death. Using hierarchical generalized linear models, we examined the associations between care continuity and end-of-life care patterns, controlling for patient demographics, numbers of outpatient clinic visits prior to cancer diagnosis, clinical factors and survival duration. Results: Approximately 81.3% of our cohort (N = 51,462) had at least 1 visit with their PCP following their cancer diagnosis. Compared with those who did not have at least 1 visit, patients who saw their PCP after their cancer diagnosis were less likely to use hospice within 30 days of death (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.90). They were more likely to have repeated hospitalization (AOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.10-1.24), repeated ED visits (AOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.10-1.24), ICU admission (AOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.10-1.24), and in-hospital death (AOR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08-1.20). They also had higher expenditures within the last month of life. Results were virtually identical whether we further controlled for the Usual Provider Care index (UPC) or the Continuity of Care Index (COCI). Conclusions: Having a follow-up visit with one’s PCP is associated with an increase in end-of-life care intensity. Given potential confounding, the results should be interpreted with caution; however, this study indicates room for PCPs to improve end-of-life care quality for cancer decedents.
Telenutrition in oncology: A novel model of care in a geographically diverse network.
Authors: Szafranski Michele Leigh , York Beth , Eaton Tara , Brick Wendy G. , Bailey-Dorton Chasse Margot 
Published: March 2017

43 Background: Telehealth is growing as a way for qualified providers to reach patients closer to home. Dietitians have been using telephone counseling to support cancer patients for years, but recently consults via videoconference have emerged to better duplicate in office, face-to-face service. Telenutritionallows Registered Dietitians (RDs)who are also Certified Oncology Specialists in Nutrition (CSOs) to provide patients consults at their regular medical oncologist’s office. As part of its goal to provide expert care to oncology patients in regional settings, genetics counselors, social workers, and Palliative Care providers at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) are currently using a telehealth model to provide services traditionally available only in metro areas. Methods: RDs located within the LCI Network receive consults from regional sites in NC based on established criteria. LCI RDs use Vidyo to teleconference between LCI locations to meet with patients, caregivers, and the healthcare team to establish an appropriate plan of care. Appointments are scheduled directly on the virtual schedule by the referring office. Consents are signed and scanned into the chart. Assessment is completed using the same protocol and policy as face-to-face consults, and follow up can conducted via teleconference or phone, based on patient preference and the clinical judgement of the RD. Patient satisfaction surveys are completed at the end of each telenutritionsession and sent to the RD. Results: LCI initially started telenutritionwith one regional site in 2014, completing 3 consults with one RD housed at its main location. In 2015, three additional sites were added, as well as an additional RD housed regionally, and 22 consults were completed. 22 consults have been completed year to date in 2016. Conclusions: Early feedback from patients and providers suggest telenutrition may be an effective method to deliver quality nutritional interventions to patients in the comfort of their regular oncology office. Formal study is needed to explore patient barriers to care, reimbursement for services, expense of equipment, and feasibility of program expansion.
Breast cancer survivorship: State of the science.
Authors: Pan Kathy , Chlebowski Rowan T. 
Published: March 2017

45 Background: Only in the past decade has breast cancer survivorship earned formal recognition as a research discipline. Complicating survivorship research is the overlap between aging and treatment sequelae (Pan et al., Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016). The ACS/ASCO 2015 Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline and the jointly sponsored 2016 Cancer Survivorship Symposium afforded an opportunity to review the “state of the science.” Methods: All 236 citations from the Guideline and all 250 abstracts from the Symposium were reviewed independently by two authors and prospectively categorized as follows: randomized trial; non-randomized study with controls; study without controls; review; and guideline. Additional categories were generated during the review process. Results: The Guideline most commonly cited reviews (n = 88, 37%), followed by 51 (22%) non-randomized, non-controlled studies and 37 (16%) randomized trials, which mostly addressed interventions for therapy sequelae such as lymphedema. Symposium abstracts most commonly described non-randomized, non-controlled studies (n = 113, 45%). Among 13 randomized trials (5%), 3 had not completed accrual; sample sizes were 60-467. 42 (17%) abstracts were identified as pilot studies and 17 (7%) as qualitative studies. 65 (26%) exclusively addressed breast cancer. Abstracts mostly covered health-related or psychosocial sequelae of therapy; however, some addressed overall survival or active cancer therapy. Conclusions: Much of the survivorship literature remains in the exploratory stage, consisting of non-controlled, pilot and qualitative studies. To optimally address survivorship issues, increasing incorporation of cancer-free, age-matched control populations is needed. [Table: see text]
Survivorship care plans: Processes, effective strategies, and challenges in a rural state.
Authors: Isaacson Mary , Hulme Polly , Cowan Jenna , Kerkvliet Jennifer , Minton Mary , Pugsley Lexi 
Published: March 2017

47 Background: Annually, South Dakota (SD) averages nearly 4,000 new cancer cases with over 40,000 cancer survivors residing in the state. While the cancer incidence and survivorship rates in SD may be similar to the rest of the nation, SD’s unique geographic and demographic landscape offers challenges in cancer survivorship care. The purpose of this presentation is to illustrate the development and implementation of cancer survivorship care plans (SCP) at three health systems in the rural state of SD. Each of these health systems is unique in its history, culture, and infrastructure. Collectively, they serve most cancer patients living in SD. Methods: An observational qualitative design was used. Key players at each health system were interviewed using a structured interview. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The authors synthesized the transcriptions with member-checking completed for each system. Results: Processes for development and implementation of SCPs similar across health systems were (a) gathering a leadership team or making a designated staff role for survivorship care, (b) developing a SCP template(s), (c) provider/staff in-put and endorsement, and (d) tracking and identifying patients for scheduling and receipt. On the other hand, the health systems approached SCP completion and delivery differently. For example, at one health system multiple individuals from the patient’s care team were responsible for SCP population and completion. Effective strategies across health systems comprised incorporating prior SCP work, open communication, and standardization of SCPs with flexibility in implementation. Challenges included incompatibilities of electronic health record platforms for automatic SCP template population and adequate staffing for the complexities of enacting SCPs. Key findings suggest a process framework is beneficial for the development and implementation of SCPs. Conclusions: As health systems consider developing and implementing SCPs, consideration of the following recommendations for a process framework may be helpful: building a foundation, gathering resources, reviewing the evidence, eliciting input, and implementing in stages.
Is survivorship care plan discussion important to patients?
Authors: Leatherwood Amy Eiko , Thomas Charles R. , Walker Sara J , Hedlund Susan 
Published: March 2017

49 Background: The 2015 Commission on Cancer standard requires that cancer survivors receive a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP). There exists a gap in consistency of how and when this plan is delivered. There is a need to evaluate patient satisfaction with personalized care along with direct education regarding the SCP and follow up. The aim of the current study was to determine the 1) rate at which cancer survivors find in-person discussion of SCP helpful, and 2) the rate at which they find the in-person discussion more helpful than the alternatives. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was routinely administered, for quality assurance purposes, to cancer patients who completed treatment in a radiation oncology setting at a NCI-Designated Cancer Center. The population consisted of survivors of breast, prostate, colon, anal, pancreatic, lung, and liver cancers. Patients were given the questionnaire at the conclusion of a survivorship visit with a nurse practitioner devoted to survivorship care. During the visit they received a SCP with full discussion and explanation of the content. The questionnaire asks two Yes/No questions: 1) Did you find the survivorship visit helpful and/or educational? 2) Was it more helpful to have the survivorship summary explained to you in person? Results: 71 survivorship visit patients were offered a questionnaire to complete at the end of their visit. 71 completed questionnaires were received from patients. Of these 71 questionnaires, 69/71 or 97% of responses were “yes” for question 1. For question 2, 68/71, or 96% of responses were “yes.” Conclusions: Our data show that the majority of patients are finding survivorship summaries to be a positive aspect of the care continuum. In addition, patients are also indicating that visits “in person,” with face-to-face explanation of survivorship summaries, are more helpful than receiving a summary without verbal involvement or explanation. These findings suggest that such in-person discussions could be considered important in quality cancer care. Future directions include investigating the effect of other individual, disease, or treatment characteristics on an individual’s preference for SCP delivery.
Reducing the burden of patient reporting of physical function in the chronic care of cancer survivors through a branching logic electronic symptom survey (BLESS).
Authors: Hall Elizabeth , Liang Mindy , Tam Emily , Chen Judy , Tian Chenchen , Campbell Matthew A , Bucci Kathryn , Lu Lin , Tse Brandon C , Zheng Dennis , Wong Lauren , Sarabia Samantha , Yeung Sabrina , Gill Gursharan , Perez-Cosio Andrea , Brown M. Catherine , Xu Wei , Liu Geoffrey , Howell Doris 
Published: March 2017

5 Background: A patient’s functional status is a key outcome variable used to both measure and improve quality of care in cancer survivors. However, comprehensive research tools such as the HAQ-DI and WHODAS instruments pose 35 questions altogether, increasing patient reporting burden. We evaluated whether a BLESS could be developed with high sensitivity of screening questions followed by questions relevant to specific physical function domain, through a branching logic algorithm. Methods: Adult cancer clinic outpatients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre used tablet technology to complete the HAQ-DI, WHODAS, EQ-5D-3L and PRO-ECOG. BLESS was developed as an algorithm that used PRO-ECOG/EQ-5D-3L to screen for appropriate domains of HAQ-DI/WHODAS to query. Sensitivity/specificity of BLESS screeners to HAQ-DI/WHODAS items were reported. BLESS derived physical function scores were also compared to scores generated by the full version of WHODAS/HAQ-DI. Results: Of 407 patients,median age was 62 (range 20-93) years, 51% female, 75% Caucasian, with a median EQ-5D-3L index score of 0.83 (0.31-1.00), and WHODAS of 6.0 (0-37). Of cancer sites, 14% had breast, 11% GI, 11% GU, 18% head/neck, 10% thoracic, 18% hematologic, and 15% gynecologic cancers. 34% were stage III-IV; 72% were treated for curative intent. Using the sum of mobility, self-care, and usual activities dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L to dichotomize patients as with or without difficulty, we found an area under the receiver operating curves that was > 90% when comparing to recommended WHODAS and HAQ cut-offs for significant physical dysfunction. Using BLESS, 38% of our clinic outpatients need answer only 5 questions, generating derived-WHODAS scores with no median difference when compared to reported scores; sensitivity of screeners for each WHODAS/HAQ-DI item ranged from 92-100%. Overall, median number of questions asked was 9. Conclusions: By focusing on relevance, BLESS maintained high sensitivity with a dramatic decrease in question burden compared to traditional research surveys for physical function. BLESS is suitable for use in immediate, routine screening of chronic care outcomes.
Survivorship care plan: Use of the ‘Oncology History’ (OncHx) feature of the Epic electronic health record (EHR).
Authors: Bugos Kelly , Foran Jessica , Petree Janis M. , Pose Sabati Katrina , Bruels Mary , Cook Marta , Mishra Pooja , Barahimi Hamed , Cook Andrew , Blayney Douglas W. 
Published: March 2017

51 Background: Survivorship care plans, including a cancer treatment summary, are a standard of cancer survivorship care. At Stanford Health Care (SHC), OncHx, a component of the Beacon module in Epic version 2012, became available May 2, 2013. The OncHx, linked to the problem list and visible to all SHC users, can be inserted in all encounter documentation and provides a chronological treatment summary. OncHx can be updated at any time. Events are categorized as: diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, blood and marrow transplant, anti-hormone therapy, clinical research, disease status, procedures, hospital admissions and adverse reactions. Each event is auto-sorted by date. We measured OncHx use at SHC between 5/1/13-5/1/16. Aim: Our objective is to measure the frequency OncHx is populated as a treatment summary. Methods: Our cohort was unique cancer diagnosis in the problem list and >1 visit to SHC during the analytical period. Cohort patients with >1 event recorded in OncHx at analytic period end was counted as having a populated OncHx. Results: The number of documented cancer diagnoses in the problem list increased over time. The frequency of populated OncHx increased from 5.6 to 16.5% reached a steady state of 15%. Five survivorship APPs populated 12% of all OncHx (#653). Nurses have edit privileges and populated < 1% of all OncHx events. Conclusions: The OncHx contains an organized, date ordered and refreshable treatment summary and is useful in generation of the survivorship care plan. Initial adoption by SHC advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians has been slow, except Survivorship APPs. Use increased after more providers were given edit privileges in May, 2014. Near future enhancements are auto-population of chemotherapy administered and report of OncHx usage in Epic generated survivorship care plan template. There is an opportunity for nurses to populate OncHx and use it for their documentation.
Experience with a nurse navigator-led, risk-based breast cancer survivorship care clinic.
Authors: Ellis Julie , Dekhne Nayana , DeLaere Angela , Pople Blerina 
Published: March 2017

52 Background: Our tertiary care hospital addressed recent survivorship care initiatives by implementing a Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led Breast Care Survivorship Clinic (BCSC). The monthly, NP-led multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) integrated the unique needs of Breast Cancer Survivors (BCS). After 14 months, an internal evaluation prompted three significant changes to the NP-led BCSC. First, the new BCBS would become a Nurse Navigator (NN)-led risk-based model that would allow survivorship care to be individually tailored to each BCS’s needs. Secondly, patients would not meet with rest of MDC team (i.e. social work, nutrition, physical therapy) during this visit. Patients were instead referred to the Survivorship Care Workshop Series (SCWS), a bi-monthly educational program developed to complement the NN-led BCSC and address common BCS needs; needs falling outside of the SCWS content were handled individually by MDC referrals. Lastly, the NN-led BCSC was conducted at follow-up visit with surgeon to avoid an additional appointment. The NN administers a questionnaire that addresses medical and psychosocial concerns, refers BCS to relevant SCWS lecture and/or MDC referrals based on questionnaire results, and finally, delivers the SCP. Methods: A comparison of the NP-led versus the NN-led BCSC was performed on the following factors: average total time and effort (T&E) for preparation and delivery of SCPs; number of actual SCPs delivered to BCS; and cost analysis of each model. Results: There were 58 SCPs completed, and 37/58 were successfully delivered to patients during the NP-led BCSC (9/2014-10/2015). There were 95 SCPs completed, and 91/95 were successfully delivered during the NN-led BCSC (2/2016-7/2016). The average total time spent by NP was two hours (n = 37) per patient compared to the average total time of 45 minutes spent by NN (n = 91) for preparation and delivery of SCPs. The estimated annual cost of the NP-led model includes T&E for NP and MDC team, is $273,946 compared to cost of the NN-model, which includes NN T&E as well a full-time SCWS program coordinator, is $86,651. Conclusions: The NN-led risked-based BCSC model is less resource-intensive, less expensive and allows for increased delivery of SCPs to BCS.
Use of a best-practice advisory to increase survivorship clinic referrals.
Authors: Kircher Sheetal Mehta , Slocum Megan , Garcia Sofia F. , Veneruso Aubri , Patel Alpa , Kinahan Karen , Gradishar William John , Jain Sarika , Flaum Lisa E. , Santa-Maria Cesar , Penedo Frank J. 
Published: March 2017

53 Background: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited institutions to give patients a survivorship care plan (SCPs) within six months of completing curative intent therapy. However, only a minority are receiving SCP’s. Some institutions have survivorship clinics to deliver comprehensive care, including SCP’s. Insufficient referrals to such clinics are a common barrier due to survivorship not being integrated into oncology workflows. To address this, we developed and implemented a best practice advisory (BPA) alert within our EMR to identify eligible patients and facilitate referrals to the survivorship clinic. Methods: Our pilot included breast cancer patients within medical oncology. The BPA electronic alert criteria included: stage 0-III, new patient encounter within 12 months, no SCP completed or previous referral. Upon triggering, the BPA asks “Does your patient require a SCP?” followed by 3 options: 1) SCP needed- an automatic order is generated, if signed, the BPA will not fire again, if unsigned, it will fire at the next encounter (no sooner than 30 days) and will continue until an order is placed or the response “ SCP not needed” is selected. 2) SCP not needed- the BPA will never trigger again for that patient. 3) Don’t know/still on treatment-the BPA will re-fire in 30 days. Data on frequency of BPA firing and number of referrals was compared 90 days prior and post implementation. Chi-square analysis was used. Results: Between 4/1/2015-3/31/2016, 902 patients were seen with stage 0-III breast cancer at Northwestern. Ninety days prior to implementation of the BPA, 30 patients (3.3%) were referred by 8 oncology providers. In the 90 days following implementation, the BPA fired 845 times (48.5% option 1, 24.8% option 2, 26.6% option 3) and 198 patients (22%) were referred. The difference was statistically significant ( χ2 = 141.7, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The implementation of BPAs within an EMR is an effective way to increase referrals to a survivorship clinic, thus increasing the number of patients given SCPs. Challenges identified were having enough staff availible to deal with a rapid increase in referrals, need for refinement of BPA criteria to more precisely identify eligible patients, and provider burden.
Growing a cancer survivorship care plan program.
Authors: Sutherby (Bennett) Claire Michelle 
Published: March 2017

58 Background: More than 15.5 million cancer survivors live in the United States. This number is expected to be over 20 million by 2026. Cancer survivors have increased risk of morbidity; therefore, preventive and on-going medical treatment requires close monitoring and coordination. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2005 report, Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, recommended health providers raise awareness of cancer survivors’ needs and establish cancer survivorship as a distinct phase of care. The IOM also recommended patients who complete primary treatment are provided a comprehensive summary and plan that is effectively explained. A survivorship care plan maps out and improves care related to accessibility of past diagnosis and treatment history, surveillance guidelines, and potential long term side effects. In 2012, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) added Standard 3.3 Survivorship Care Planto the program standards. This met the IOM’s objective of addressing potential patients that get “lost” as they transition from care they received during treatment through phases of their life or disease. Methods: The Cancer Committee within a CoC certified organization developed multiple strategies to address the IOM and CoC standards. Strategies included a process to disseminate a comprehensive care summary for cancer patients who are completing primary treatment, adoption of the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Treatment Summary and Survivorship Care Plan template, and adding a survivorship nurse navigator to the interprofessional treatment team. The survivorship nurse navigator monitors and reviews survivorship care plans with patients, advises when to seek treatment for symptoms, discusses surveillance guidelines, navigates patients through therapies, and educates on prevention and screening. Results: Evaluation for quality of life and compliance with individualized surveillance guidelines is ongoing. Conclusions: The oncology nurse navigator role is uniquely positioned to lead care coordination and improve outcomes through the continuum of care. Providing patients with a summary of their treatment and a plan moving forward may decrease stress related to the transition from active treatment to survivorship.